Ed Komarnicki

[Replacement Workers, March 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address this motion.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code contains the fundamental principles in which labour relations in Canada are governed. It is very important legislation designed to provide stability to Canada's industrial relations.

Motion No. 294 calls for amendments to specific parts of part I in isolation from the other parts of the Canada Labour Code. Given the importance and the careful balance of the code and how that balance was arrived at, to take one portion in isolation of the other and try to amend it would upset the balance.

I ask hon. members of the House not to support this motion. I believe changes made to the code in this manner will disrupt the generally positive labour relations environment in our federal jurisdiction today.

At this time of Canadian and global economic instability, one has to question the appropriateness of making changes to the code that would favour one party over another. In addition, a ban on replacement workers could be negatively perceived by potential investors to Canada and disrupt the delicate balance of bargaining power that parties in the federal jurisdiction currently have. This could also lead to a more adversarial labour relations engagement on the basis which I discussed earlier with the member.

Canadians want their government to act responsibly and help protect the economy. We are helping to ensure that Canadian businesses and families have the security they need to weather the economic storm and come out of it stronger than ever.

There is an important point at stake here that we must consider. I believe the proposals contained in the motion before us today would weaken the foundations for positive labour relations in Canada.

Industrial relations legislation seeks to balance the competing interests of employers and employees as represented by their trade unions. The issue of replacement workers remains a contentious one. It is commonly accepted by labour relations experts that the employer's, particularly in a federal context, countervailing power to the union's right to strike is not so much the right to lock-out as their right to try to continue to operate during a work stoppage. We have a third party involved, and that is members of the public, whose interests need to be looked at as well.

It should be noted that, in the majority of cases, federal jurisdiction employers do not keep their operations functioning by employing external replacement workers. More often, management, supervisory personnel and other non-unionized personnel are assigned to take the place of striking workers.

The current provisions in the Canada Labour Code were introduced in 1999 after a valuable period of stakeholder consultation and a very extensive consultation of all the players. The question of banning replacement workers was a central issue at that time as well, and it was thoroughly examined.

What the stakeholder consultations determined was that there was simply no consensus on this issue. The decision at that time was to enact a provision that allowed for the hiring of replacement workers but banned their use for the purposes of breaking a union.

More consultations were also conducted recently with labour and business stakeholders on this very same issue. Just a few weeks ago, a study on the impact of work stoppage in the federally regulated private sector was made public and again stakeholders did not reach consensus on the issue of replacement workers.

The current provision with respect to replacement workers puts clear limits on the use of replacement workers during legal strikes or lockouts. It represents a practical compromise and a middle ground between unions that seek a complete ban on the use of replacement workers and employers that want personnel so they can continue operating.

In speaking to some of the stakeholders, it was obvious that there was a give and take in not only arriving at a decision on this issue, but on other issues as well that resulted in what we see as part I. To take out only one or two portions and deal with them in isolation to the whole picture will certainly upset the balance that the parties strived so hard to achieve.

It is our role to provide employers and employees with a labour relations environment in which they can manage their own relationships within the framework of the law. That is what the government is doing. It is assisting labour and management in the constructive settlement of disputes, and the evidence is convincing. Year after year, over 90% of the disputes in the federal jurisdiction are settled without a work stoppage, often without the assistance of federal government mediators.

It is also important to remember it is not just the federal jurisdiction that has decided not to impose a complete ban on replacement workers. There is considerable variability among provincial jurisdictions. Again, this is a reflection that the proposed approach that is contained in the motion is not as straightforward as the hon. member may suggest.

Only two of the provinces and territories in Canada have labour legislation that restricts the rights of employers to use replacement workers during a work stoppage. They are Quebec and British Columbia. Obviously the other provinces have determined that this part of the legislation is not in the best interests of the collective bargaining process or else they would have already implemented such provisions. Many of them have already considered this issue and have decided not to legislate a ban.

Labour program data further indicates that both Quebec and British Columbia continue to experience long work stoppages, notwithstanding any anti-replacement worker legislation. For the period 2006-08, the average duration of a work stoppage in Quebec was 52 days and in British Columbia 55.4 days, while in the federal jurisdiction, the average duration of a work stoppage was 49.2 days.

Also, a number of complaints concerning the use of replacement workers during work stoppages are filed each year in both Quebec and British Columbia. In 2007-08, 25 complaints were filed in each province respectively. Of the 25 complaints filed in Quebec, 10 were upheld by the provincial labour board. In British Columbia, five of the 25 complaints were upheld. This suggests that even if there were a legislative ban on replacement workers under the federal code, it would not resolve these controversial issues.

In addition, a number of independent university studies have concluded that prohibiting the use of replacement workers during work stoppages may be associated with more frequent and longer strikes. Other studies concluded that there is no evidence that a legislative ban had an impact either way on strike activity. Furthermore, a comparison of wage settlements in all jurisdictions, including those that do not have replacement worker legislation, indicates that there does not appear to be any link between the type of replacement worker provisions and the wage settlement for workers.

The issues are far greater than just the two that the member has raised. In order to resolve work stoppages, a different point of view must be taken. There must be a new way taken, but it is not the way that the motion would suggest.

When all of this information is taken into account, in the end there is no evidence to support that the position of prohibiting the use of replacement workers would lead to better labour relations or better economic conditions. That is just not so.

In conclusion, I believe the best approach to this issue is one that preserves a delicate balance which currently exists in part I of the Canada Labour Code. We cannot expect any benefit from this amendment. On the contrary, this motion risks creating instability in the labour relations climate at a time that the economy can least afford it and least needs it.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to consider the entire legislative spectrum in the broad interests of all Canadians. The motion does not address those responsibilities. I am asking members of the House not to support it.

[Replacement Workers, March 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a question and a comment for the hon. member.

How would she describe an essential service and is she aware that in Quebec has a labour code that sets out what might be a public service that is essential? It has a board, the Essential Services Council, that tries to deal with it. There are numerous applications that are made to the board to make that decision.

First, there are differences between provincial essential services and federal essential services. What does she see those differences to be? Second, how would she define essential services? Third, how would she expect that to be resolved? Section 87.4 is very narrow to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public and it engenders a number of applications. Would she expect the number of applications now made under section 87.4 to go up and would it take a considerable period of time to resolve them?

If she could answer those questions, I would appreciate it.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member speak for and against a subject that would help seniors and older workers in a number of ways that I and the hon. member have listed. It is certainly something that would have been worthy of support, but she is focused on her particular motion and I would like to speak to that.

I would speak in support of our public pension programs and the good work the Conservative government has been doing for some time to help seniors. Since its first day in office, our government has been absolutely committed to improving the lives of seniors. We have done that by making seniors' issues a priority and by sticking to improved programs such as the GIS the member referred to, so we can do an even better job of serving Canadians.

A great deal has already been done to translate this commitment into reality. For example, since taking office we have increased the GIS by $36 per month for unattached seniors and $58 per month for couples in January 2006 and January 2007. These monthly increases to the GIS amount to a 7% increase over and above regular indexation to compensate for the increase in the average wage. The total cost of this measure alone is $2.7 billion over five years.

We have also increased the GIS earnings exemption from $500 to $3,500, so that many working pensioners can now keep up to an additional $1,500 in GIS benefits.

We also passed Bill C-36, legislation that makes it much easier for seniors to apply for and receive their GIS payments. This change allows seniors to make a one-time application for the GIS and receive it year over year as long as they are eligible, provided they file annual tax returns.

To help encourage seniors to apply for GIS benefits which they may be entitled to, we send out application forms to low-income seniors identified through the tax system. These efforts have helped to put benefits in the hands of more than 328,000 additional seniors.

For seniors who do not file income tax returns, we have undertaken aggressive targeted outreach efforts to reach seniors who may be eligible for GIS. These efforts range from setting up information booths at events to working closely with the volunteer sector and first point of contact service providers. Targeted groups include newcomers, persons with disabilities, aboriginals and the homeless.

Our support for seniors has not stopped there. We have also provided more than $1 billion in tax relief each year to Canadian seniors through pension income splitting and enhancements to the age and pension income credits. This amounts to a significant amount of dollars.

More recently, through our economic action plan, we have introduced measures that will also help seniors in many additional ways. For example, we are increasing the age credit by $1,000 for 2009 and beyond to allow eligible seniors to receive up to an additional $150 in annual tax savings.

We are investing an additional $60 million over three years in the targeted initiative for older workers program. We are expanding the number of potentially eligible communities to include older workers in small cities.

We are providing $400 million over two years through the affordable housing initiative for the construction of housing units for low-income seniors.

Canada can be proud that the poverty rate among Canadian seniors has declined dramatically over the last 25 years. In fact, the average income for seniors in that time has doubled.

Canadians can also be proud that we already have one of the lowest levels of poverty among seniors of any country in the industrialized world, at around 5%. It is quite a remarkable figure. This makes us the envy of many other nations, including Sweden, the United States and the United Kingdom.

That being said, there is always room for improvement. Our government will continue to work to ensure that the needs of all seniors, including low-income seniors, are adequately met.

Let me turn to the motion before us today. Given the size and complexity of the GIS program, upon which many of our most vulnerable citizens depend, it is vital that each and every change being considered be examined thoroughly. Careful consideration must be given to impact and cost.

With that in mind, I would like to take a few moments to examine the proposals contained in today's motion and how they might affect the GIS program and the people it benefits.

To begin with, there is a proposal to increase monthly benefits by $110, a move which could cost as much as $2 billion a year. The motion also calls for unlimited GIS retroactivity which, by some estimates, could cost as much as $3 billion. These two measures alone would cost several billions of dollars. We are talking about huge sums of money, especially given the economic times we are living in right now.

It is important to note that GIS benefits are already paid retroactively for up to one year. The current one year retroactivity provision is at least on par with, and in some cases superior to, retroactivity provisions for similar programs in other Canadian and international jurisdictions. For example, retroactivity provisions for the Alberta seniors benefit, British Columbia's senior's supplement, and Ontario's guaranteed annual income system allow for a one year retroactivity limit. This is also the case for the Canada pension plan.

The current one year retroactivity provision contained in the OAS act is even more generous than similar programs in other countries. For example, Australia's age pension, New Zealand's superannuation and Sweden's guaranteed old age pension provision provide for no retroactivity. Social assistance programs such as Alberta works, Nova Scotia's income assistance program and Ontario works also have no retroactivity provisions.

In this regard, I would like to point out that the previous Liberal government was in agreement with this particular point. Here is what the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, on November 18, 2005, had to say on this issue:

With respect to retroactivity, I think it is more important that this program be totally consistent with existing provincial income supplementation programs. On the issue of retroactivity for one year, there is no discrepancy between this program and the provincial programs, which are income supplementation, security or support programs.

It is also very important to note that full retroactivity could also mean increased costs to the provinces and territories whose income supplement programs are based on eligibility for the GIS.

All that said, we must keep in mind that there are already two exceptions when retroactive payments can be made beyond one year: first, when the applicant would have been incapable of expressing the intent to apply for benefits; and second, when an administrative error has occurred or erroneous advice was given.

This motion also proposes paying six months of a deceased person's pension to the survivor. While this proposal seems reasonable at first glance, it is important to note that the GIS is already adjusted for changes in family status following the death of a partner since many low income seniors become eligible for GIS or an increase in that supplement due to the fact that they are now single income individuals. Furthermore, both the Canada and Quebec pension plans contain survivor benefit provisions that help seniors in such situations.

Last but not least, this motion proposes eliminating the requirement to apply for GIS benefits, which is also difficult since the information available from the Canada Revenue Agency is often insufficient to determine eligibility. In this regard, the former Liberal member for Ahuntsic and former parliamentary secretary to the minister of social development said that doing away with the application process would:

--unreasonably burden the governmental retirement system administratively, technically and financially...Without the application process and income verification, the system would be open to abuse. In addition, we would not have enough information to determine entitlement for seniors who, for instance, do no file tax returns. This would also substantially increase the risk of errors within the system.

Those words are from a Liberal predecessor of mine on this very topic. These comments were made in this House on October 24, 2005.

The onus for making an application must continue to rest with the applicant. Thankfully, as I have mentioned, due to the actions of this government, our seniors now only have to apply once for the GIS benefit.

For the reasons I have outlined, we cannot support this motion. While the proposals are well intentioned and we cannot disagree with the intent of the motion, the reality is that implementing these measures would require enormous financial investments and would have widespread ramifications and implications for other government programs, both at the federal and provincial levels.

As such, I would urge all members of this House to work with the government as we continue to ensure that our policies, programs and services meet the needs of Canada's seniors in a responsible manner. We will continue to do that and we will continue to look at ways to enhance their benefits. It must be at a progressive rate and at a time that the government decides.

Therefore, I would ask members not to support this motion.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly well intentioned and is heading in the right direction. Seniors who have worked hard and contributed to the growth and development of our communities and country are well deserving.

There were a number of initiatives in the last budget, pension income splitting and others. In budget 2009 there was a $1,000 increase to the age credit, $400 million over two years for the construction of social housing, long-tenured worker benefits of $500 million, and $60 million over three years for the targeted initiative for older workers. There was a series of initiatives in the budget with respect to older workers.

The member asked for support of her motion. Why is it that she did not support the budget which contained some very significant benefits for older workers and seniors, benefits that they surely could have used? How is it that the member and her party opposed those very initiatives in the budget?

[Employment Insurance, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I can advise the member and the House that this initiative has been received very well. Here is what the Forest Products Association of Canada had to say:

—extending the work-sharing program will keep thousands of forest-sector employees gainfully employed until market conditions improve, help workers retain valuable skills, position companies to take full advantage of the eventual economic recovery, and lessen the impact of layoffs and mill closures on communities.

That is what employers want. That is what employees want. That is what Canadians want. We are taking action to protect jobs and to keep Canadians working.

[Housing, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was just enunciating a number of initiatives we took. That particular party voted against each and every one of them while at the same time trying to promote the issue of housing.

With respect to homelessness, we have committed $1.9 billion over the next five years to improve and build new affordable housing and to help the homeless. These are the kinds of things we are doing. We would ask the New Democratic Party and this hon. member to get behind us and help support that to happen.

[Housing, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have committed a number of dollars with respect to housing: $1 billion to support much-needed repairs to social housing, $600 million for new housing and repairs to existing housing on reserve, $400 million for on reserve, $200 million for the North, $400 million to build more seniors housing, and $75 million for new housing for people with disabilities.

We are addressing that issue in a significant and substantial way.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that member and his party have provided absolutely zero in EI benefits for workers, and yet at the same time they blow hot and cold.

They oppose hiring additional staff to meet the demands. How can they possibly do that? What is the rationale behind that? Why would they oppose a budget that has a number of provisions to help those who need help most? How can that member stand in the House and say he opposes the budget at this particular time when the economy needs the very measures that we are proposing?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we froze the premium rates over two years so that employees and employers would not have to suffer the increase in premiums and so that the savings could stimulate the economy.

I would ask that hon. member, who has been advocating for older workers and supports the targeted initiative for older workers, why would he vote against the budget when it would provide $60 million over three years, for a total of $50 million per year, to communities with a population of less than 250,000? Why would he vote against that measure, which is only one of a number of measures to protect Canadian workers who are facing a hard time? How can he justify voting against an initiative that he has been promoting for a number of years?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have asked the House to fast-track the budget implementation bill so that billions of dollars can go out to the country to create jobs and infrastructure and implement other plans.

We have also frozen EI rates for employers and employees over the next two years so that they will not have that extra cost. That member's government took $50 billion from the fund and invested it to reduce the overall budget rather than to help those who had paid into the fund. I would ask the member why his government did that at that particular time.