Lisa Raitt

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, our long-term vision within the Conservative government is exactly that, for jobs and growth. As we have heard many times today, we have posted over 760,000 new jobs and they are high-quality good jobs, not part-time jobs that the opposition alleges. I would invite the opposition members to look at the facts on this and get them straight.

We know that the economic action plans of the past have worked and we are very excited and proud of economic action plan 2012 because it takes that long-term look, which is the look that is needed for my constituents in Halton, as well as for my family.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-38.

Jobs, growth and long-term prosperity are at the heart of this bill, which comes as Canada is emerging from the global economic downturn and facing increased competition in the global marketplace. Fortunately, we are facing these challenges from a position of strength.

Our government pledged in the Speech from the Throne that we would promote a stable low-tax environment, develop a highly skilled and flexible workforce, support innovation, and expand access to markets abroad. Bill C-38 is the next step in delivering on those promises to Canadians.

The Government of Canada's priorities are also the priorities of the labour program. The labour program is cutting red tape. It is modernizing and streamlining its operations, as well as consolidating some programs and activities. The cost-saving measures within the labour portfolio will result in savings of $16.7 million. At the same time, we are continuing to fulfill our mandate to promote a fair, safe, productive workplace, and facilitate co-operative labour relations in federally regulated private industries.

I will begin by describing what Bill C-38 will mean for the federal labour portfolio. When businesses go bankrupt, many people suffer, but some of the most unfortunate are those former employees who were entitled to long-term disability pensions and indeed were receiving long-term disability pensions. Bankruptcies can lead to the reduction or even complete loss of long-term disability benefits when there are insufficient funds to cover the outstanding claims. Economic action plan 2012 proposes to require that going forward, federally regulated private sector employers insure on a go-forward basis, as I said, any long-term disability plans for employees. This will provide additional financial security to these individuals and their families when they need it most.

The new provisions for long-term disability plans complement the support our government already gives workers through the wage earner protection plan, WEPP. The WEPP was introduced in 2008 to provide timely compensation to workers in federally regulated industries for unpaid wages and vacation pay they had earned in the six months preceding their employer's bankruptcy or receivership.

We expanded the WEPP in 2009 to protect severance and termination pay, and again in 2011 to cover workers whose employers had to restructure without success. The recent expansion is estimated to provide an additional $4.5 million annually in support to workers affected by the bankruptcy or receivership of their employer. Through economic action plan 2012, we are proposing to add $1.4 million annually in operating funds to ensure that WEPP applicants receive the benefits they are entitled to when they need them.

I would also like to briefly mention some other economic action plan 2012 measures that will increase efficiency and get better value for Canadians. Among the changes, the federal contractors program will be redesigned, and that will streamline the program requirements. The initiative is part of the Government of Canada's deficit reduction action plan, and it will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and programs to ensure value for taxpayers.

The obligation for employers to meet employment equity goals will now be placed directly in the contract as a mandatory clause, and failure to meet the obligations shall constitute a breach of the contract. As such, federal contractors that wish to contract with the Government of Canada will be required to meet employment equity obligations. Modernizing the federal contractors program will reduce the administrative burden on contractors. That, of course, was a key recommendation of the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

We also propose to amend the Status of the Artist Act to transfer the function of the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, or CAPPRT, to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. The CAPPRT currently supports constructive labour relations between federally regulated producers and self-employed artists, but there has been a considerable decline in CAPPRT's case activity over the past five years. Indeed, each year since 2006-07, the tribunal has only received slightly more than one new application, and averaged fewer than one day of hearings.

As a consequence, the government has decided to transfer CAPPRT's powers, duties and functions to the CIRB. With this amendment, the existing framework for labour relations in the federal cultural sector would remain in place, with the CIRB continuing the work of the tribunal and promoting and supporting professional relations between artists and producers.

By transferring CAPPRT's powers, duties and functions to the CIRB, the government is ensuring that an experienced and competent body remains to oversee the relationship between artists and producers in the federal jurisdiction, but it would do so while generating cost savings and improvements to administrative efficiency. We fully expect that this transfer would result in both improved services and reduced delays in resolving cases, while not directly impacting the artists themselves.

We are also proposing to modify the Government Employees Compensation Act to streamline and improve administration of third party claims and to enhance efficiency in the federal public sector. Workers' benefits would be unaffected by this adjustment, but the amendment would allow crown corporations to pursue third party claims under the act and that would reduce overall labour program administration costs for third party claims.

Finally, we are also planning to repeal the outdated Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which was enacted in 1935 at a time when very few regulations existed to protect workers. At one point in time, it did serve a useful purpose, but today it no longer plays a significant role in protecting workers. The reality is that federal construction contracts today account for only 2% of non-residential construction work in Canada compared to 1955 when it was 11%. As well, the provinces and territories already regulate wages and working conditions in the construction sector. In many respects, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act duplicate existing provincial labour legislation.

Today, like all other workers in Canada, construction workers are protected by comprehensive provincial and territorial employment standards. They are also protected by human rights and by occupational health and safety laws of the provinces and territories. Therefore, repealing the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act supports our commitment to create jobs and fosters economic growth by eliminating red tape and duplication. It is part of our deficit reduction action plan and we seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and programs to ensure value for the taxpayer.

With respect to temporary foreign workers, prevailing wage rates are already set by HRSDC and Service Canada, and repealing the act will not change this.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada's priorities continue to be jobs and growth, and these are also the priorities of the labour program. Through Bill C-38, our government is looking to move forward on our commitment to make effective and efficient use of our resources in ways that respond to real needs.

I urge this House to support Bill C-38.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to tell the House as Minister of Labour that, as part of the free trade agreement, there is a labour co-operation agreement, and in it we provide something called technical help. I had the great pleasure of visiting my counterparts and the leadership of the Panama Canal this past year in order to ensure they understood that we are here to help and want to trade our best practices. Indeed, I had great conversations not only with management and government but also with trade unions in Panama. They indicated to us that they want more information about inspection and help with best practices, which we are providing through the labour program.

My question to the minister is this. From the perspective of the trade side, is there an urgency for us to finalize this agreement for the betterment of the Panama Canal coming online in the next couple of years and, indeed, for the overall economy of our country?

[Rail Transportation, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the truth hurts. Delaying even a day is an $80 million bill to the Canadian public and they are preventing the Teamsters, the people that they say they march shoulder to shoulder with, from returning to work. It is a sad, sad day. It is a calculated move by the Liberals. It is irresponsible and it is arrogant.

[Rail Transportation, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yorkton—Melville for all his work.

In an astonishing turn of events, and despite 60 years of parliamentary precedence and tradition, we have learned that the Liberals have decided they will block passage of the bill in the Senate. Let me be clear. This is an $80 million bill that the third party is handing to the Canadian public—

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of compelling reasons to end the strike at Canadian Pacific Rail. Count among them the fact that the company employs roughly 15,000 employees and only about a quarter of them are members of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference who are currently on strike. That means the majority of the company's employees are being affected.

It is important that members of the House are aware that the annual average earnings in the rail business, at more than $79,000 a year are among the highest in Canadian industry. These are good jobs. With the CP Rail system shut down, a significant number of workers, and a lot of money as a result, will be taken out of the economy.

There are 1,100 Canadian communities that are served by CP, which operates in six Canadian provinces as well as thirteen U.S. states. The company's rail and intermodal transportation services provide a network covering 22,000 kilometres. CP Rail serves all the principal business centres across Canada, from Montreal to Vancouver, and has direct links to eight major ports, extending essentially its reach to every corner of the globe. The railway also feeds directly into the U.S. heartland.

The company transports bulk commodities, merchandise, freight and intermodal traffic. On the bulk side these commodities include grain, coal, sulphur, fertilizers. Merchandise freight consists of finished vehicles and automotive parts as well as forest, industrial and consumer products. Intermodal traffic consists mostly of high-value, time-sensitive retail goods in containers that can be transported by train, ship and by truck. In short, CP ships a large portion of everything that Canadians harvest or manufacture.

Factor in the value of freight moved by CP rail in Canada each year, which is just shy of $50 billion annually.

The sectors that use rail transport contribute significantly to our economy. A 2009 report prepared by the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management estimated that four key Canadian industries, oilseed and grain farming, coal mining, wood products manufacturing and pulp and paper and paper products manufacturing, contributed over $81 billion to Canada's GDP each year. Equally noteworthy, these four sectors account for close to one million jobs, jobs of Canadians all across the country that are being adversely affected by this work stoppage.

My colleagues in the House are certainly aware that a major disruption in Canadian railway operations can have great consequences on various sectors of the economy, and we have talked about those very much in the last three days. I have just illustrated how important CP rail services are to the Canadian economy.

It is never the government's first choice to proceed with back-to-work legislation and it is not something that I take lightly. I really had hoped that we would be able to avoid a work stoppage and avoid introducing legislation. However, there are no other options left to consider without causing irreparable damage to the economy and the economic recovery. It is necessary for the government to act decisively and to do it quickly.

Canadians want the government to protect our national interests in a period of ongoing economic uncertainty. Canadians expect it and we are obliged to act.

While Canada's economic performance remains strong relative to many other industrialized countries, the current global recovery is fragile. As stakeholders involved in the 2011 rail freight service review panel noted, Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier suffers as a result of these disruptions. In today's highly competitive marketplace that can quickly lead to lost clients and lost markets.

The review panel also heard that rail labour issues were disruptive to the flow of goods in the logistic chain. That is because rail-based logistic systems involve a range of stakeholders, including shippers, railways, terminal operators, transloaders and ports. Problems incurred by any one of the players causes system congestion and it can take weeks for operations to recover afterward. This is precisely the situation we are facing today in day eight of an ongoing rail strike.

Canada's rail system in general does not have the capacity to pick up any slack from a CP Rail work stoppage. I want to remind the House that there are only two Canadian class I freight railways. One is CP Rail and the other is Canadian National Railway, or CN. Roughly 20% of CP traffic does not have direct access to CN's network and CN is already operating at full speed at any rate. At best it can only absorb a very small percentage of the additional load. More to the point, CP Rail and CN have an agreement whereby CP operates all trains of both railways from the Fraser Canyon to the south shore of the Port Metro Vancouver. Therefore, the CP Rail strike is affecting the flow of goods going into and coming out of the Port Metro Vancouver and CN's activities as well.

VIA Rail simply cannot help. It is designed to transport passengers, not freight. Therefore, we can see there are no other options and the economy can only be protected by the quick passage of this legislation.

Contrary to assertions from the opposite side, we have done our utmost best to avoid this situation. The government has worked hard and we have provided assistance to the parties to prevent this work stoppage. From the outset, I encouraged all parties to reach agreements through the negotiation process.

CP and Teamsters started negotiating in October and November 2011. They represent 4,200 running trade employees and 220 rail traffic controllers with full collective agreements expiring December 31, 2011.

By mid-February of this year, I received notices of dispute from the employer for both units. To try to break the impasse, the labour program provided the parties with the services of two conciliation officers for both of the union's bargaining units. Having the same conciliation officers for both units helped to ensure consistency in the process.

In spite of the efforts of the conciliators, who had many years of experience both on management side and on the union side, they could not help the parties find common ground. Things did not progress to a negotiated settlement and, as such, in accordance with the Canada Labour Code, they were released from conciliation on May 1.

On May 16 and May 22, I met with the parties myself but to no avail. On May 23 the strike started.

Labour officials worked with the parties for the first five days of the strike to try to reach a settlement or to try to find a voluntary arbitration process for the parties, but the parties rejected outright the compromise position that labour officials provided to them. As a result, labour officials withdrew their services because the impasse was great and the parties were entrenched in their positions and there was no prospect for a deal or a voluntary arbitration agreement.

I tried to give hon. members a quick rundown on events that took place over the span of eight months. However, the situation we are now facing, despite assistance provided on a massive scale to the parties, is one in which we have a strike affecting the national economy. We have tried diligently to avoid any disruption in railway transportation and its consequences for Canadian producers and manufacturers whose economic survival depends on this mode of transportation.

As I mentioned, I met with both parties on two separate occasions in the weeks leading up to the strike for over a period of about 30 hours. I acknowledge their efforts in attempting to achieve a resolution through their respective differences, but I was firm in my expectation that the parties were to do everything in their power to reach a deal of their volition. It is the responsibility of the parties for their own labour relations and it is the responsibility of the parties to conclude a collective agreement.

I ensured that the parties were aware of the serious concerns I had about the economic damage that would be inflicted on the Canadian business and agriculture sectors as a result of a possible work stoppage. I offered the parties an extended mediation period and asked them to continue to bargain and make every effort to achieve an agreement. My officials offered a compromise position.

I wanted to avoid the need for legislative intervention on the part of the government. Unfortunately, the parties failed to reach an agreement on either content or on process. Therefore, we are left with no choice but to assume our responsibility to the Canadian public and bring this dispute to a conclusion.

For all the reasons I have already outlined, this government is committed to doing what it takes to protect the public interest. The federal government has introduced back-to-work legislation in the railway industry in governments on eight occasions since 1950. We do not want nor can Canada afford to allow the strike to continue, especially at a time when the global economy remains in a precarious state.

I urge all members to swiftly pass the bill to get CP trains rolling again and enable the Canadian economy to continue to create jobs for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Madam Chair, I can give members some great granularity on the exact effect it is having on the automotive sector. Indeed, CP and we have been informed by both Toyota and Honda that they would be facing plant closures starting tomorrow in Alliston, Woodstock and Cambridge.

These are serious matters. People depend upon those jobs to feed their families and to ensure they can look after their families, their houses and their lives. It is important that we act quickly to ensure the passage of this bill in a fast manner so that we can avoid those kinds of third party unintended consequences from a work stoppage.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the member for pointing out the effects on the forest sector. We have the same information.

I know the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Transport have all been contacted by their stakeholders on these very important issues, because it is just indicative of how widespread an effect the rail strike is having on our economy.

In the forest sector, as indicated, there is at least six pulp and paper mills that are captive to CP Rail, four of them are in B.C. and two of them are in Ontario. Of those six mills, it is quite likely that some mills will need to shut down as this progresses, if this is to be a prolonged work stoppage, because they are running out of storage space. In these small resource-based towns, the shutting down of such mills would have a devastating effect on the communities and the workers.

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

Madam Chair, what I can say is that the time to act is now and we must pass this bill as quickly as possible.

We are now entering into day eight of the strike. As such, the economic effects will pile up more and more and the effect on the national economy will become more and more severe. That is exactly why we are sitting here tonight at the time and the hour that we are sitting here, to ensure that we have passage of this bill.

We have explained very clearly what the economic effect is and we have also indicated very clearly that we are acting in the greater good of the Canadian public in ensuring that we pass this legislation and we have the trains rolling again soon.

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

Madam Chair, as we are in committee of the whole, I thought perhaps we would talk about some of the clauses that are in the bill. I think if people understood the legislation they would have a clearer image as to what the process is that follows.

In response to the member for Vancouver East, I have actually heard the speech before because I spent 30 hours at the table with the union. Ironically, it is the same thing they said to me at the table that the NDP said this evening here in the House. I wonder as well whether the NDP members took the time and effort, as we did on this side of the House, to consult with all parties on the issue. Did they speak to CPR management on its topics and the matters that pertain to it? That is certainly what we did in the labour program in coming up with the back-to-work legislation and helping them through the collective bargaining process.

With respect to the member for Cape Breton—Canso, I guess that not all experts and not all academics are in agreement with the position that he put forth. I can quote from Ian Lee from Carleton University's School of Business. He said, “What I'm arguing is that the government has intervened because of the huge impact it has, the externality impact it has on other industries, other communities, other workers in other parts of the country that are not a party to collective agreement negotiations. The government is quite rightly saying, 'Look, the people in these communities that are dependent on railroads, the agricultural community and resource-based communities in northern Ontario and western Canada, cannot sustain strikes because it shuts down their ability to make a living'. Parliament and the government of the day is elected to achieve the greater public good. They are weighing, I believe, the greater public good of the damage it may be causing to the particular individual relationship in that company with the union versus the greater public good of the millions and millions of Canadians across Canada who are profoundly affected”.

That is why we included clause 8 within the bill which sets out a very fair and balanced means of arbitration for the parties to come to their own decision on their collective agreements in their own time.