Lisa Raitt

[Canada Post, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is both parties at the table who are negotiating and who have been unable to attain an agreement.

That is why we are acting on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of small businesses, on behalf of charities, who are being affected by this work stoppage across the country. As I said, that is exactly why we will be introducing back to work legislation today.

[Canada Post, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as we stated before, the parties to the dispute have been unable to attain a collective bargaining agreement thus far.

That is why the Canadian government is proposing to introduce back to work legislation. That is exactly what I will do today at 3 o'clock.

[Canada Post, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have had an ample amount of time to discuss their issues at a bargaining table and, indeed, to use the collective bargaining process.

We have been part of that, too. What we have been doing is facilitating, either through conciliation or mediation, or indeed through my trying to bring the parties to focus their attention on the issues, because, at the end of the day, the work stoppage affects all Canadians, small businesses and charities, and that is what needs to be addressed.

[Points of Order, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our government remains focused on Canada's economic recovery and the financial security of all Canadians. As the House knows our government received a strong mandate for Canadians to complete our recovery.

Today, I am very pleased to report to all Canadians and the House that minutes ago Air Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers signed an agreement in principle to bring an end to the work stoppage and return full service for passengers within 24 hours.

I want to applaud the efforts of the parties in focusing their attention to the matter and, of course, on our federal mediation services. The government's position on Air Canada has been clear. The best agreement is always the one the parties reach themselves.

The objective of the legislation that we put forward today has been achieved and we are so very pleased that there will be a resumption of service for Air Canada passengers. We remain committed to protecting Canadians and keeping our economy growing, strong and on track.

[Labour Relations, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in this country, we do have the right to collectively bargain, and it is the role of Labour Canada to help facilitate this collective bargaining process.

In the case of both Air Canada and Canada Post, we have been diligently at the table providing conciliation and mediation. I have helped to provide services to both parties. We want them to reach their own deal but they have not been able to do.

We need to protect those who do not have a place at that table. That is our appropriate response as the government.

[Labour Relations, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by indicating that the hon. member's characterization of labour law in Canada is completely incorrect.

It is also important to note that there are no sides being taken in any kind of legislation that may be put before the House. We are on the side of the economy and of general Canadian interests because we want these parties to make a deal. If they cannot make a deal, we will help them in the process to do so with the least amount of damage to the Canadian public.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, under our charter, we do have the right to free collective bargaining. The courts are well settled on that matter, and we respect that. We are saying that we are interested in seeing what the effect will be on the economy. We are concerned about that and we are concerned about the effect on the average Canadian. That also matters.

This is not just about the parties at the table attempting to attain a deal through the collective bargaining process. It is about when that process breaks down and results in a work stoppage that has that effect. That is where it is appropriate for the government to step in. We have done it, as I said, 32 times in the past number of years since 1950. It is the appropriate action in this case as well.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I should let the House know that my mother is a dues-paying, card-carrying union member of CAW as well. I, therefore, have great respect for the movement and I take the matter very seriously.

The question of why we are acting now goes to the heart of why we are acting quickly. It always comes back to the economy.

We have been intensely discussing the matter with the parties over the past number of months. Should a strike or a lockout occur there would be a serious effect on the travelling public and on the economy. They anticipated that would be seven days. If we look through the history of legislation, we can see that oftentimes it takes between seven and nine days to deal with matters of such importance. We thought it would be more appropriate to put the notice on the order paper in anticipation of what would happen. It is no different from other back to work legislation in the past.

Since 1950, the House has passed back to work legislation 32 times. A number of those times have been with respect to private companies. However, the remaining factor that binds them all is the national significance of the work stoppage and the effect on the Canadian population. Those two factors guided us in our deliberations on this matter. We take it very seriously.

I will make one last point. Our role in Labour Canada is to facilitate and prevent these things from happening and over 90% of the time we are successful.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I share the same concerns with our constituents.

With respect to the situation right now, one critical aspect of this is that it would give certainly to Air Canada employees, the general public and businesses that there is a finite amount of time that there will be a work stoppage so they can make their plans and will not be adversely affected.

I can also say that it is important for the House to remember that, even as we debate the motion here in terms of procedure, there is the opportunity and ability for both parties to be at the bargaining table. I understand they are there now. I would ask that the parties do their best diligence so that we can avoid having the debate to follow with respect to back to work legislation and that the two parties can reach a deal that is beneficial for their employees, brothers, sisters and Canadians in general.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking why we are acting now. As I said in my opening remarks, it is because we knew the disturbance that would happen in a number of days would be extremely significant to the national economy and on the travelling public.

Throughout this process there have been negotiations at the table. I have had conversations with both CAW and Air Canada on the topic. One of the key questions that I asked at the beginning concerned what the effect would be if they got into the situation of a work stoppage.

Both parties separately, of their own volition, gave me the same information. They said that at the beginning of a work disturbance or stoppage they would be able to cope, that they would have managers available who were trained quickly to substitute for the unionized employees, but that there would be a finite amount of time that could possibly happen successfully.

In both cases, they estimated that it would be between seven and nine days before there would be an almost complete shutdown of the system. That is what we are talking about. Therefore, we acted accordingly in anticipation of the economic disturbance that would happen in that case. We did so and we put notice on the order paper in order to proceed as quickly as we could.