House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 41% of the vote.
Questions on the Order Paper September 19th, 2011
With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Finance: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?
Quebec September 19th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, with his hand on his heart, the Minister of Industry promised that GST harmonization with Quebec would be resolved by September 15. It is now September 19 and the government has pulled the plug on the new unit in Bagotville, there is no more funding for the Saint-Rédempteur viaduct in Lévis, and we are still waiting for a new Champlain Bridge.
Why has the government written off Quebec? Is it because Quebeckers did not vote the right way, or is it the influence of the Prime Minister's new communications director? Why are they turning their backs on Quebeckers?
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Madam Chair, I would like the Minister of Labour to clarify one point.
I was a member of the House of Commons in 1997 and I am now holding Bill C-24. According to clause 11 of this bill, contrary to what the minister has said, the arbitrator did not have his hands tied. I quote from this clause:
[It is necessary to establish an] agreement resolving the matters in dispute between the employer and the union arrived at before, or pursuant to, mediation;
They did not say it had to be the employer or the union. The arbitrator’s role was truly an arbitrator’s role. The arbitrator did his work and found grounds for agreement between the two; it was not one or the other.
I would like the Minister to explain to me how and where this was done, and so clear this up. For the Conservatives are working on just one side, instead of working to find an agreement between the two parties. I want this to be clear. Not only are we going to support the amendment, as we supported our amendment and the NDP's amendment, but at no time in 1997 were the arbitrator’s hands to be tied, except on the wage issue, of which we will be able to speak again later.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Madam Chair, what is the definition of "relevant"? Are we going to keep going on and on and talk about everything or are we going to talk about clause 8 and the arbitrator? If they do not like themselves, let them sort that out in therapy, but we would like to know what clause 8 is.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Madam Chair, I wish to say a few words after the night we just had. First, I want to acknowledge and thank all the House and security staff. I think they should be applauded for spending all this time with us. This whole filibuster has wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.
The problem with clause 2 is that we have a bad bill before us and there is also this ideology of the official opposition, which wants to drag things out, even though it knows full well that, given the government's majority, this legislation will inevitably pass.
As for us, we said from the outset that, in accordance with our role, we wanted to propose amendments in a constructive fashion, so as to show that we are able to respect the right of workers, while also respecting the citizens who want to receive their mail. We did not want to drag things on, and our action was not influenced by ideology, whether from the left or the right.
The problem with this whole issue is that I heard the minister say she would rather protect 33 million Canadians than 45,000 workers. However, these workers also happen to be Canadians. It is somewhat strange to try to divide people when we are supposed to find solutions. We could have saved a lot of time if, in the definition of “arbitrator”, the minister had allowed this arbitrator to have full control. Indeed, given his or her experience and expertise, an arbitrator is capable of finding a common ground for both sides.
We could also save a lot of time, knowing full well that the employer made salary proposals but that the bill includes lower salaries. That is totally ridiculous. Our television viewers, who now number more than four or five, will finally see how this whole thing will turn out. I find it rather sad that this House was used to wage a small war between the Conservatives' right-wing ideology and the NDP's left-wing ideology.
If we want to resolve the situation and abide by the Constitution of Canada, we have to be pragmatic. In 1997, I was on the other side of the House, and back-to-work legislation was introduced, but it was after a general strike, not a lockout. And here their slip is showing, since just before that we had Air Canada, and so we have the government's pattern right in front of us: it denies workers their rights, and very certainly, every time we have a little problem, its definition is going to mean that we will have back-to-work legislation.
This is a very sad day today. I hope that on Monday people will remember on both the official opposition side and the government side that a lot of people are going to be ill-served. We could have avoided this entire debate if things had been done properly.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for those who work in this House. My colleague is talking so fast, the interpreters cannot keep up. For my part, I am having a hard time understanding what he is saying. Could he please slow down?
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, my colleague shows a lot of class. We are all working for the welfare of our constituents. I urge him not to stray from that, because the kind of things he is saying are just not right. They are filibustering, and we do not agree, but we are still doing our job.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster takes too much time, he is the one using up all the time. With his long points of order, he is preventing his own colleague from being able to answer questions. I had questions I wanted to ask and I am very disappointed.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
We were celebrating the 24.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, he should be careful. If that party wants to be in power one day and learn from an NDP government in British Columbia, it will pass back-to-work legislation.
I want to pick up on something he said earlier because he was using words of wisdom. He said the former Reform Party of Canada engaged in a filibuster that did not amount to anything in the end.
Does he agree that we no longer need to carry on with this filibuster? We need to get working and focus a great deal of effort on proposing amendments in committee of the whole. Then we will really be trying to make things work.
We are currently just marking time. We call this marking time. For the three or four people watching us on television, it is five in the morning. We are marking time and repeating ourselves. Some hon. members are sharing notes with their colleagues. We see the same hon. members, because they got and sit next to the person making the speech, for they want to be seen on television often.
Nonetheless, the reality is that we are marking time. Can we move on to more serious things, go to committee of the whole, propose amendments and truly help resolve the situation?