Lisa Raitt

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

Mr. Chair, we have asked the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to take a look at the issue of whether operations need to continue in a work stoppage. Simply put, the parties at the table did not do the analysis as to what the health and safety ramifications would be on the public interest.

As we have said throughout, we are here to act in the best interests of the public. That includes not only the economic and travelling portions of the public interest, but also health and safety. Quite frankly, there are communities that would not have service. There are 15 communities that definitely would not have service should Air Canada have a work stoppage. Those are communities that would need to have some kind of alternative air service that is not available to them, especially when it came to transporting passengers, cargo, pharmaceuticals or perishables to their home communities.

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

Mr. Chair, there are six bargaining units at Air Canada that we have been dealing with since I became minister in January 2010. Indeed, in all of them there was a very large amount of effort put in by the officials at Labour Canada, be it through either mediation or conciliation services, and in two of the cases we took extraordinary measures of appointing outside conciliators in order to help the process along. There is much expense, time and effort put into it because, quite frankly, at the end of the day avoiding an impasse and having to utilize valuable time in the House in order to pass legislation of such an extraordinary measure is one that we would like to avoid.

In fact, putting the work in at the beginning is the way we should be doing it. I am very proud of all the efforts we have put into this. Unfortunately, with all the labour that we have put into these files, it has not yielded results in these two cases and that is why we are moving to act today.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to remind the House how important the comprehensive air services are that Air Canada provides. The services go to 59 Canadian large and small communities, 59 American and 60 international destinations, including Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, Mexico and South America.

When we include ACE, Air Canada Express, which would also be affected in the work stoppage, that is over 80 destinations in Canada and the United States, as well as larger centres at off-peak times. On a daily basis, it is approximately 800 flights and combined with Air Canada it is over 1,100 flights a day, which are incredibly important to the travelling public and businesses in Canada.

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

Mr. Chair, that is an excellent point from the member.

With respect to air cargo, air transportation is a key component of global supply chains, especially for perishables and pharmaceutical products. It is important to note that Air Canada transports about $466 million worth of goods each and every year. It is actually 22% of domestic capacity and 49% of international capacity.

These things are extremely important for global logistics chains as well as our domestic ones. That is why it is important for us to act quickly. I ask the opposition to join us in moving the bill through the House.

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

Mr. Chair, we are treating this matter with great urgency. The facts are very simple. The economic impact of a work stoppage at Air Canada would be grave on the national economy and, indeed, it is grave on the travelling public and on the businesses.

As I mentioned in my remarks, 26,000 employees, 250,000 other employees associated with the airline would also see themselves not having a job. This is why we need to act quickly to ensure that a work stoppage does not happen.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his question because that really is the focus of the bill. It is about putting the Canadian public interest first.

As we indicated to Canadians in the last election, we were the ones who would look after the economy, who understood the economic recovery and understood the means we needed use in order to ensure that the economy would continue to prosper. That is why we were elected, that is why we are here in the House and that is exactly why we are here for this legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, as I was explaining in some detail before and again now, the government has followed all the rules and taken all the steps set out in the Canada Labour Code while assisting the parties in these two Air Canada disputes. As the history of these two disputes has clearly shown, the parties in each case have had plenty of time to reach an agreement with the help of expert mediators and conciliators whom I appointed, but no deals had been forthcoming.

Indeed, the disputes have been dragging on for almost a year, and that is a long time. The uncertainty with these agreements has had a negative effect on Air Canada already, and I am sure it is very stressful for the members of the union as well.

The Canada Labour Code recognizes the principles of freedom of association and free collective bargaining, and the code gives the parties in labour disputes many ways and many opportunities to reach a settlement with or without the help of the federal government. We, as the government, respect the right of unions to strike and the right of employers to lock out; indeed, we prefer not to interfere in these matters unless it is absolutely necessary, but this is a special case: when a work stoppage has the potential of impacting the national economy, Parliament must respond to protect the public interest.

Consider the impact on jobs. Air Canada is a major employer. As of November 2001, Air Canada had 26,000 employees, and 23,000 of those are full-time employees. If the airline loses money, these jobs could be in jeopardy. There could also be jobs lost at Air Canada's partners and suppliers to the tune of 250,000 jobs.

According to Transport Canada, any reduced operation at Air Canada also adversely affects Canada's airports as well as Air Canada's third party suppliers. The elements of the air service system are interdependent upon one another. If one element is weakened, the rest are vulnerable.

Up to now the news about employment in Canada has been encouraging. We have recovered all the jobs that were lost in the recession and we created some new ones, so the question is whether we really want to gamble with our economy and possibly put these jobs at risk. In the event of a work stoppage, Air Canada services as well may not easily be replaced. Many Air Canada customers simply do not have access to an alternative carrier. In some places Air Canada is the only airline, and in some places Air Canada is the only efficient means of transportation, so the lives of thousands of frustrated travellers could be disrupted, some of them inconvenienced, but in other cases they may face real hardship.

Our government is not indifferent to the concerns of the Air Canada employees in these disputes. Throughout the process of collective bargaining, we assisted the parties and we encouraged them to find their own deal. We gave them processes and recommendations and provided them with mediators and conciliators. We were hoping that they would come to agreements that would be acceptable to everyone, but unfortunately it has not worked out that way.

We have always said that the best solution in any dispute is one that the parties reach themselves, but the parties in these disputes have failed to do so. I have used all the tools that we had at our disposal under the Canada Labour Code, and there is no other recourse but to ask members to support this legislation. The fact that a work stoppage affects the interests of employers and unions cannot outweigh the needs of 33 million Canadians.

Our economy needs labour peace in vital industries like air service. I hope that the opposition can see the urgency and the need for this bill and join us in giving it a quick passage.

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

Mr. Chair, the second objection is that the problem we are trying to solve is not really all that serious.

I would like to tell my hon. colleagues, including the ones who broke into applause, that these arguments simply do not stand up.

I would like to remind my fellow members that since 1984, there have been 35 work stoppages in the air transportation industry, six of them involving Air Canada, so we already have a good idea of the damage a work stoppage can do.

Some of these work stoppages took a heavy toll on the economy and severely disrupted the lives of Canadians. Once again we are faced with the likelihood of a work stoppage at Air Canada, and once again it will take a toll on Canadians.

Our government has quoted statistics on the possible economic damage and disruption to our fragile economic recovery. The government's mandate is to maintain our economic recovery and act in the best interests of Canadians. That is what we are here for.

As I have already explained-—

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

Mr. Chair, throughout this debate on legislation to avert a work stoppage, there are certain predictable objections. The first is that we are misusing our powers and imposing on the rights of collective bargaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, the way the Canada Labour Code is crafted allows for the overriding Canadian public interest to be taken into consideration in exceptional circumstances. This is an exceptional circumstance.

In the Canada Labour Code, there can be a maintenance of activities, as I mentioned in my remarks, with respect to health and safety.

What matters here today is that what is happening at the bargaining table is separate and apart from what would happen to the Canadian public in the event of a work stoppage. That is what we are acting on, and that is the reason we are bringing this legislation forth this evening. It is because of the economic issues with respect to the greater work of Air Canada, how many people it employs, 26,000 employees, and a 250,000 spinoff from that, who service Air Canada. It is a significant portion of our economy, one that we need to ensure does not have a work stoppage, so we are providing a process for the parties to find their way to collective agreements that are stable and that are certain.