Denis Coderre

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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?

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

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?