Bob Rae

[Employment Insurance, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us today what the anticipated reductions in employment insurance payments are expected as a result of the changes being proposed by the government. It is clear that this is a money-saving exercise.

I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us exactly what kind of money will be saved in this regard.

[Restoring Rail Service Act, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves once again, as a House, debating a question of back-to-work legislation. It has become an extraordinary habit on the part of the government.

I want to try to talk to the House, if I may, from a perspective that is different from the perspective we have heard either from the government or the official opposition, and I know there will be a lot of heckling and other things.

We all recognize that there is public interest in both senses of the word. There is a public interest in the negotiation and discussion process between the workers and the employers. We decided that, in our economic system, we would let the parties make every effort to find solutions to their problems. We recognize the importance of these rights, whether it be at the federal or the provincial level.

It is also important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada also recognized the importance of the process, the importance of negotiations, the importance of making an effort to find solutions and the fundamental importance of recognizing that, in a democratic society, workers and employers will have differences of opinion from time to time and that, yes, there will be strikes.

We do not want a strike. We do not want any disruptions to the economy. We recognize that this is difficult for the economy, workers and employers. However, the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that people have these rights and we recognize that it may cause inconveniences when workers or employers exercise their economic and social rights. That is the law in Canada. That is the social situation in Canada.

We also recognize on our side of the House, and I am sure there are some members, at least in the New Democratic Party, who understand it because of their involvement in various governments at the provincial level, that there is also a public interest in the economy and a public interest in ensuring that at critical times the public interest must be maintained. Therefore, yes, as the minister has said, from time to time governments have introduced back-to-work legislation of various kinds.

I have to say to the minister that the back-to-work legislation she has introduced on previous occasions, and the way in which she has exercised her discretion with respect to the appointment of arbitrators, has shown a bias toward employers and a bias toward simply exercising an authoritarian practice by the government, which is shameful.

It is also the case that when the collective bargaining is still going on and people are still at the table and the minister ventures out to the microphones and says if the parties are not able to reach an agreement very quickly the government will be ordering them back to work, we all have to understand what that does to the balance of the discussion. What that does is this. If an employer knows that the government is going to be there ordering people back to work, not at the end of the day but at the end of the hour, there is no incentive on the part of the employer to reach an agreement. That is the problem we have with the approach that has been taken.

My colleague from Leeds—Grenville spoke in the House, and I appreciated his comments very much and the comments the minister has made where the formula is this: the economy is fragile, the economy is interconnected, it is our competitiveness that is at stake, we simply have to intervene, we have no choice. If that is the case, before the other side applauds, why even pretend there is such a thing as collective bargaining? Why even pretend there is such a thing as a right to withdraw labour? Why even pretend there are in fact democratic rights that do from time to time create an inconvenience? Why not just abandon the whole process and set up an authoritarian structure where the government and the employers get together and establish what the pension rules are going to be, establish what the wage rates are going to be and forget about the democratic rights of the people who are working for a living?

That is the problem with what we see coming from the government. We do not deny for a moment that the government has an economic responsibility. What we deny is the competence of the government. What we deny is the fairness of the government. What we deny is the sense of balance of the government. That is why we will be voting against this legislation and the way in which its power has been exercised.

There is a very serious issue which is now raised by the rhetoric of the minister and raised by the minister and members who were speaking in favour of this legislation. It is the same issue that we had with respect to the Canada Post legislation, it is the same issue that we had with respect to Air Canada, and the way in which it has exercised its discretion to appoint arbitrators and the way in which it has exercised its discretion to intervene.

That is, what is the future of labour relations in the federal jurisdiction in this country, if at every moment and at every time that workers exercise their rights to defend their pensions, to defend their job security, to defend their health and safety, the government is there telling the employer, “Do not worry, we are on your side. We are not on the side of the workers. We are going to be making sure that people get back to work right away”?

All sense of balance is lost. At the end of the day, what really matters in this House and what really matters with respect to legislation is this critical sense of balance. We in the Liberal Party of Canada do not deny for a moment that of course there are times when governments have to intervene. We recognize that. We have done it. We have seen it. We have been there.

It is not a question of “Do we have the right to intervene?” It is a question of “How do we intervene, what is the sensitivity with which we intervene, what is the balance that is struck when we intervene, and how do we ensure that the work of the employer, the work of the workers, both sides are respected and both sides are taken?”

I do not think there is disgrace in the fact that CP Rail makes a profit. It is a good thing that CP Rail makes a profit. The question is not whether it is a profitable company or a private company, the question is, “Do we have a government, today, that is prepared to recognize the need for balance, the need for fairness, and, yes, the need for justice, as well as the needs of the economy?”

Right now we do not have that government. That is the reason the Liberal Party will be voting against this legislation.

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader already tweeted on this subject, which is a thoroughly nice thing of him to do.

I also appreciate the point from the member for St. John's East. I know Premier Dunderdale extremely well. We had a wonderful meeting not too long ago. In fact, we spent the regatta together on August 1. If I inadvertently referred to the premier as “he” when I should have referred to her as “she”, of course I apologize.

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost as if these changes are being put out on the back of an envelope.

We still do not have the regulations that are in place. It is one of the reasons that we are hearing not just from employees who are concerned and not just from seasonal workers. We are hearing from farmers, from farm organizations right across the country, who are deeply concerned about the impact of these changes on their own employment practices with respect to temporary permits of people coming in from offshore.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why he will not withdraw these suggestions until such time as he has established a stronger national consensus for the kind of changes that this requires?

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Prime Minister is not prepared to recognize the reality of the situation. If people cannot get employment insurance benefits, they will turn to the provinces for welfare. History clearly shows that that is what happens. That is why the premiers are insisting on discussing the repercussions of these cuts on the provinces.

I am asking the Prime Minister directly. Is he prepared to meet this country's premiers in order to deal with this problem, yes or no?

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Dunderdale of Newfoundland is quoted as having said this about the situation with respect to employment insurance, “What is it that we have to do down here to get your attention? We try to co-operate; it doesn't work. We vote for you; it doesn't work. We don't vote for you; it doesn't work. What is it?”

The premier is expressing a frustration that is shared by other Atlantic premiers, indeed by premiers across the country, with respect to the lack of consultation by those jurisdictions that are going to have to pay the price for this downloading.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet with Premier Dunderdale and the other premiers?

[Employment Insurance, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I feel as though I am being attacked by a wild sheep. This is serious.

He did not answer my question. He has to admit that there is a problem. It is not just the workers and the employers who will be affected by these changes. This is an issue that will also affect the provinces. This issue goes to the heart of what the federation is, to the essence of Canada.

Why increase costs for the provinces without even consulting them?

[Employment Insurance, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go there.

Speaking of not consulting, I would like to ask this question very directly to the minister or to whoever is answering these questions today.

The changes in employment insurance will inevitably have a major impact on social assistance in all the provinces in the country, particularly those provinces with higher numbers of people who are currently covered by employment insurance. That is inevitable. That has been the impact since the 1990s. That has had the effect and had the impact.

I would like to ask the government this question: why did it not consult directly with the provinces and directly with the premiers whose costs are going to be directly affected?

[Rail Transportation, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of consultation and the government's back-to-work legislation, I would like to ask the minister very directly whether, instead of rushing the bill through the House, he would not finally see the wisdom of allowing the members of the unions involved as well as the company to have an opportunity to appear before a House committee.

Surely they have a right to explain to the House exactly what the impact of that legislation is going to be, what it is going to do to their bargaining power, what it is going to do to collective bargaining, what it is going to do their pensions and what it is going to do to their wages.

How can one take away pensions and wages without giving workers the opportunity to—

[Pensions, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that those new definitions are simply not in any information we have been given. They are in the musings of cabinet ministers opposite and we have had another philosophical discourse from the minister speaking on behalf of the government.

We still have this contradiction with respect to the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. The government members tell us there is a crisis and that it is going to be resolved in 2023, but they will not tell us how much they think they would be saving.

How can the government say there is a fiscal crisis with respect to the affordability of the plan and yet not have any idea as to what the return to the taxpayers is going to be?