Denis Coderre

[June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it makes sense to use waiting rooms as an example, but I know that this will disappoint some people even more. Given the number of people in waiting rooms, it is pretty sad to think that there is a fast track. That would explain why the government is in favour of a two-tier or two-speed system.

I said earlier that I agree with back-to-work-legislation, but that each situation is different. A balance needs to be struck between collective rights and individual rights. Bargaining is normal, as is tension between employers and employees, or between unions and employers. I believe that the rotating strikes were a good choice. It was a pressure tactic, not a national strike. I have been involved with unions enough to know that.

The NDP member spoke about how democratic unions are. As an aside, Local 144 is one example that contradicts that idea of democracy, and there may be others. It is true that talks can sometimes be difficult, but they work. Disputes are normal. I find it sad that we are imposing this sort of thing, especially given that the current context is entirely different from 1997.

[June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, ironically, 14 years ago I took part in this same debate, but there were significant differences: after two weeks of strike action by Canada Post postal workers, the Liberal government of the day wanted to introduce back-to-work legislation. That is obviously when an arbitrator is appointed. However, unlike what we are seeing today, the arbitrator spoke to both the employer and the union. A binding agreement was reached. Having an arbitrator makes the decision binding. It ends the strike and people return to work.

I would say, for the benefit of the thousands of people watching us on television, that a number of things are going to happen today. First, since the government has a majority, it will not matter who tears their shirt over this; the bill will pass. Then, the official opposition will tear its shirt and engage in what we call a filibuster: it will take all the time in the world in order to look good to the workers and the union. The opposition will have done its job, but the bill will pass nonetheless.

I think we must take this opportunity to help people understand what is really happening and how dangerous this bill is. This tactic is often used by this government. It is important to remember that we are not just talking about Canada Post. The government showed its true colours in the case of Air Canada; in less than 24 hours, the government was ready to introduce a bill. It was a warning. That means that, as of now, the government no longer believes in bargaining power. The government no longer believes that employees and unions can sit down and talk with management. The government is on management's side and that is that. There are no more collective rights.

What is troubling is the way this bill is being introduced. I want to talk today about respect because, as the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle said earlier, the government is also starting to label: unions are bad and management is good. The bad guys are the greedy employees who have a very big collective agreement and who, when it comes right down to it, are well paid. Does the government need that? Now, it is going to try to make the public believe that this bill is important because some people are losing a lot of money and others are not receiving their cheques, etc.

Can we put things into perspective? The Liberal Party believes that we must take a pragmatic approach. Yes, it is true that Canada Post is an essential service and is linked to an economic reality. However, it is also important to understand that, unlike 14 years ago when the strike lasted two weeks, this time the workers were not on a general strike but, rather, a rotating strike. Service was still being provided. It was the employer itself that decided to reduce the number of days that the mail would be delivered: three days a week rather than five. In addition, according to the union—and this information must still be verified—a little bit of mail was being set aside. This made it more difficult to deliver all the mail. Then, after 12 days, Canada Post declared a lockout.

The problem is that Canada Post is owned by the government . It is a crown corporation. I refuse to believe that the Minister of Labour was not speaking directly to Canada Post's management. In summary, this whole situation does not really hold water.

The Canadian public must understand that, yes, the mail is an essential service; yes, the mail must be delivered; yes, there are economic considerations, particularly in rural regions. We understand all that.

To demonstrate the good faith of the Canada Post workers, I note that some people were to receive their cheques last week. They received them because the postal workers did deliver social assistance cheques, for example, and cheques for seniors. That shows that there is some element of good faith in this situation.

What exasperates me in this kind of debate is that everything is black or white. Unfortunately, the NDP is dogmatic, with its all or nothing approach. We heard the member for Acadie—Bathurst who was fit to be tied. We are also fit to be tied, but he should watch his blood pressure.

Even on the Conservative side, just now, there was a member who did not understand that in the Canada Labour Code there is a right to stage rotating strikes. Things are not going well.

That is why this debate is important: people have to understand how things work.

What I find even more disrespectful, as a Quebecker and a French Canadian, is that with the NDP's symbolic obstruction and the way the Conservative Party is proceeding, it has been decided that even though June 24 is the national holiday of Quebec, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, we are going to sit anyway. The national holiday is being treated as something of no importance. I agree with the Bloc, as I mentioned this morning, that we could have adjourned. If we believe Quebec is a nation, we should respect the Quebec nation. I do not see why we would sit on that day. In any event, let us not panic; on the 24th, there is no mail delivery in Quebec, and so we would not have received any, in any event. At some point, we have to have some principles.

That being said, it is unfortunate to see a bill offering employees a lower wage than what the employer had offered in the first place. We have an arbitrator who is essentially being held by the throat and told what he has to impose, how he is going to achieve it, that it is either the employer’s package or the union’s package. The way things are working, I would find it very surprising if the union’s package were accepted. We are on a very slippery slope in Canada. At some point, the issue is one of rights and values.

Certainly if there had been a general strike for two weeks in the same circumstances as the strike 14 years ago, the situation would be different. After two weeks of a general strike, the bill could have given the arbitrator some latitude and the binding authority to look at both sides of the coin and pick some things from each side. When there is an arbitrator, there are losers on both sides, the employer’s and the union’s. I have seen enough examples in my lifetime to know that. But in this case we get the clear impression that the dice are loaded.

I think it is really very sad that we find ourselves in this situation. The government is going to try to tell us how awful it was during the Liberals’ time, and that this government believes in the economy. We believe in the economy too. In 1993, when we took power, the Conservatives had left us with a $42 billion deficit, and we balanced the books, as my former leader Jean Chrétien said. And now we have another deficit.

It is odd; Canada Post is earning a profit. They cannot pick and choose. The hot topic concerning the economy this fall will be the future of pension plans for those who have them. Look at what is going on with the City of Montreal and others. All collective agreements are being reopened. There is something going on with pension plans. Furthermore, young people are entering the labour market. They will notice they do not have the same working conditions and will perhaps not have any pension plan.

Bullying tactics, like the action being forced down our throats, will not solve anything. They are simply sweeping things under the rug. It looks good, people return to work, but the problems will still be there. The government could have been more creative and respectful of collective rights, while still respecting individual rights, by creating appropriate legislation. I hope that the minister will want to make some amendments.

As a member from Quebec, I will not be here on June 24. If we are still sitting on June 25, I will be happy to return, but out of respect for Quebeckers and French Canadians, I will not be here on June 24. If there is something on the 25, we will be here. We believe that we must have just as much respect for French Canadians and Quebeckers as for workers.

The Liberal Party has a pragmatic approach. I congratulate and thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, our labour critic. He has shown how different our approach was compared to the NDP's and the Conservatives'. At some point, any government, regardless of the political party, will introduce back-to-work legislation. There must be a balance to help the general public, but we must not ignore the fact that workers also have rights and that, above all, they deserve decent working conditions.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 23rd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, what I find humorous in all of this, what I find shameful, is that it is as though the public were on one side and workers were on the other, as though the workers were not part of the public, as though they were not taxpayers. I find that a bit simplistic.

In 1997, I was on that side of the House. When we voted on back-to-work legislation—and it is normal to do so—it was because a national strike had been going on for two weeks. A rotating strike is not a strike, it is a pressure tactic used to force a negotiated settlement. The employer decided to provide mail delivery three days a week, even though the workers wanted to continue delivering the mail. Then came the lockout. What the minister did with Air Canada is part of a pattern. And there is no way she can make me believe that a crown corporation, which belongs to the government, is not talking to the government.

The question is, why play into the employers' hands? Why not ensure that there is a negotiated settlement? Let the arbitrator do his job. If he were to do it, there would at least be a possibility that the workers would get a little something, but this is take it or leave it, one or the other. Why take that stance and hang a sword of Damocles over the heads of the workers, denying their right to a negotiated settlement?

[Government Spending, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we now know there has been an outcome in the Muskoka scandal. In reply to a letter that our former colleague Marlene Jennings wrote to the director of public prosecutions, there is now an RCMP investigation into an apparent misappropriation of funds in the riding of the current President of the Treasury Board. Unlike the NDP, which is trying to get its 15 seconds, I want an answer.

Can the Prime Minister tell me whether his President of the Treasury Board and his Minister of Foreign Affairs have been contacted by the RCMP, and whether he is prepared to cooperate himself?

[Petitions, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, there are some people who deserve our utmost admiration. One such person is Marie-Hélène Dubé, who is known to my colleagues. She started a petition calling for changes to section 12(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, which provides for a maximum of 15 weeks of benefits in the event of illness. This aspect of the law has not been amended since 1971. We believe it should be changed from 15 weeks of benefits to 52 weeks. It is not right that a person suffering from cancer only has 15 weeks of benefits.

On behalf of more than 75,000 petitioners, I am presenting this petition and urging the government to take note of it because we have had many petitions from the beginning. I presented a petition with 30,000 signatures about the same issue last March, and it is time something was done about this.

[Highway Infrastructure, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is staying silent on the messy issue of Montreal's south shore bridges.

The Mercier Bridge is blocked off, when it is not falling to pieces, much like the Champlain Bridge. People are having a heck of a time getting to work, and we are going to tell them an emergency committee needs to be struck because no one is talking. Montreal is being taken hostage by a lack of transparency, leadership and communication.

What is the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities doing for Montreal? Why is he not making the Champlain Bridge studies public? What does he have to hide?

[Daniel Lessard, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and honoured to pay tribute today to a man who has decided to call it quits after 42 years as a journalist.

Daniel Lessard is one of those great journalists who made a difference in the wonderful world of politics. Having witnessed first-hand the major debates of the past few decades, he put things into perspective and was always a reliable source of information. Someone once said that integrity breeds credibility. Daniel Lessard helped build the reputation and credibility of the Radio-Canada newsroom and various current affairs programs, such as Les Coulisses du pouvoir.

I was interviewed often by Daniel. His interviews were a reflection of the man himself: respectful, honest, straightforward, without airs, but always determined to get to the bottom of things.

The Liberal Party of Canada and I wish him a happy retirement. Thank you, Daniel, for a magnificent career. Enjoy these tranquil moments with Debra and your sons, Christian and Charles-Adrian. We hope to see you again and we can hardly wait for your historical novel.

Good luck and thank you.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, we have to be realistic. If the government says it is conducting its mission and pulling out three and a half months later, it will never work. However, if it co-operates with the foreign affairs critics and if we could be updated on this issue as it develops, that would be different. I would not want us to make a hasty decision without seeking permission from Parliament. We must not decide, after three and a half months, that it is time to pull out.

We do not know what is going to happen in three and a half months. It will go by quickly. Will Gadhafi still be there? According to some, we were supposed to be rid of him, but there have been many bombs since the beginning. There is even talk of civil war. The United Nations has a role to play. The right thing to do is to have another debate here before making any hasty decisions.

I understand that for political reasons the NDP is against NATO. Some NDP MPs wanted us to pull out of Libya immediately and “keep our powder dry”, as they say. Let us talk first and adopt the right policy. What we want above all is to protect the civilians, the people of Libya. After that, we will hold another debate, but we must not pull out too quickly.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I think that governance should be a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs; this is a diplomatic matter. There are several ways we can go about it, but there is one thing I would not want to see. At one point, in Afghanistan, National Defence had a committee specifically under the CDS, which advised Mr. Karzai. That is not the role of National Defence, in my opinion. It has a role to play, but that is not it. It has done things well in military terms, but when it comes to governance it is important that this really be under the auspices of Foreign Affairs.

I am in favour of multilateralism. We can work with the United Nations, and Canada can provide support for a mission organized by the UN. That has been done in several cases in the past, particularly with MINUSTAH, in Haiti, where we played a supporting role in relation to governance, reconstruction, justice and all that. There may also be bilateral agreements between Canada and Libya.

Canada must play an even more important role in the Arab world. Governance in Libya is important, but things have been done in Egypt by our former colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We will have to do things in Tunisia, for example. I do not understand why we have not yet frozen the assets of Ben Ali’s brother-in-law.

We are have to face certain facts, and this will call for a hybrid approach to things. One thing I know, however, is that Canada has a reputation when it comes to democracy and governance. Canada can very certainly play a role, in relation both to existing institutions and to establishing a bilateral strategy.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, today it is not a matter of saying that we have given a certain amount. There must be zero tolerance. Not only must we invest money, but we must also ensure, when international treaties or conventions are signed, that we are capable of fully carrying out our responsibilities. I am thinking of child soldiers, for example. We sign treaties, but I sometimes feel that we just go through the motions of supporting them. I am not speaking about a specific government, but in general terms.

Yes, we do have to invest money and ensure that we are not just cutting a ribbon or writing a cheque to feel good. But there must also be follow-up. When we attend meetings of the UN Security Council and sign a treaty or convention, we must be able to implement it in order to prevent such events from happening again. We must thus push back the limits of impunity. There must be zero tolerance. In this process, there is no room for ethnocentrism, and the Libyan people must take charge of their destiny through the national transitional council. They must also ensure that, in future, the rights of women will be respected, the ravages of war will be prevented, and efforts will be made in terms of the culture. They must ensure that such situations do not happen again.

We must be very careful. We are pleased that the government is investing money, but it is not just about the money. Resources are not all about money. This is also about the will to make change and how to go about it, and the resulting political work. One day, we will no longer be there. The cameras will no longer be focused on what is happening in Libya because there will be another problem somewhere else. And when we have forgotten, other things will happen. Just because we are withdrawing from Afghanistan and are proud of what we have accomplished there does not mean that no more horrors will take place.

How can we ensure that there is follow-up? That is the diplomatic and multilateral role of Canada in international institutions. It is the duty of any self-respecting government to ensure that we do more than just give money. Furthermore, we cannot say that the cheque is in the mail because Canada Post is on strike. There must be substantial follow-up, we must work more closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs, make good use of our diplomats, and work with our NGOs in gathering intelligence and taking action to protect the people.