Maria Minna

[Riding of Vaughan, November 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of cabinet, the minister represents the views of the government. The petition went further. Not only did she want an inquiry, she wanted him suspended without pay, and pending the inquiry, fired altogether.

If the minister did not have confidence in the Prime Minister's hand-picked candidate then, how can she, the Prime Minister and anyone else in that cabinet have any confidence in him now?

[Riding of Vaughan, November 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last year a petition was circulated condemning the actions of Julian Fantino as OPP commissioner for his actions at Caledonia. The petition denounced “flawed policing” and demanded “a public inquiry into the actions and decisions made by the Commissioner of the OPP Julian Fantino”. Thousands of Canadians signed this petition, and so did the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Does the Conservative government continue to support an inquiry into the actions of Julian Fantino?

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Madam Chair, we all know that the old age security, GIS and CPP combined only replace about 30% of a senior's income. That leaves about 70% uncovered, which means, of course, that a lot of seniors are struggling and in the future it will get much more difficult.

The other plan that was supposed to help was the RRSP. Unfortunately, we all know that the RRSPs are really not working in our country. I think the average contribution to RRSPs is about $1,000 or $2,000 a year. Only about 10% of Canadians actually max out their RRSP limit, and that is only Canadians who are fortunate enough to have quite a high income. On top of that, we have to add in the fact that private pensions or company pensions are diminishing, while some of them are defaulting, which is a whole other issue. There is a lot of instability and a lot of problems.

I wonder if the hon. member could tell us what direction we really need to be going in to ensure Canadians have some stability in their pensions in the future.

[G8 and G20 Summits, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is releasing the numbers two days after the byelection and we are supposed to believe that it is a coincidence. He is the same Prime Minister who blocks Conservative candidates from public debate, muzzles them, does not let them speak. Now he is keeping the voters of Vaughan in the dark about the $100 million their Conservative candidates signed off on.

Will the Prime Minister show some respect for the voters of Vaughan and release the figures today?

[G8 and G20 Summits, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Toronto police department has come clean on its summit spending. What we do not know is how the OPP and its former chief, Julian Fantino, spent over $100 million. The Conservatives are burying the truth to shield their candidate in the Vaughan byelection.

When will the Prime Minister stop protecting his hand-picked candidate, come clean and release the figures?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 15th, 2010]

With regard to Cascade Aerospace: (a) how many complaints have been made to the Labour Program from January 1, 2000 to September 28, 2010 and on what date was each complaint received; (b) which of these complaints related to occupational health and safety; (c) how many inspections have taken place during the period indicated in (a) and on what dates did those inspections occur; (d) did any of the inspections in (c) result in a stoppage of work or direction to the employer and, if so, what was the reason for the order to stop work or direction; (e) following the direction to the employer made by health and safety officer Betty Ryan on September 23, 2009, under subsection 145(1) of Part II of the Canada Labour Code, did the employer terminate the contraventions by the specified date of October 31, 2009, and, if not, what action was taken by the Labour Program; and (f) will the Labour Program review its handling of the Cascade Aerospace file in light of the time taken to give a direction to the employer after the initial complaint was received?

[International Co-operation, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is insulting Canadians with that answer. Documents from CIDA prove that her officials told her that KAIROS absolutely fit government policy, yet for months the minister has been misleading Canadians and showing contempt for the good faith and good work of millions of Canadians who support KAIROS.

Will the minister now apologize for misrepresenting the truth and finally approve funding for KAIROS?

[International Co-operation, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, officials from the CIDA minister's own department have said that KAIROS continues to meet all the requirements to qualify for CIDA funding to support development overseas. However, the minister continues to stonewall this House in trying to explain why she denied its funding.

Her officials recommended that KAIROS should receive funding. Does she not trust her own officials, or is it that she is not actually in charge of her own department?

[Municipal Elections, October 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in municipalities across Ontario voters spoke up by casting ballots to choose their next mayor, councillors and school board trustees.

Today I want to congratulate three former Liberal members of Parliament who have earned the confidence of their local communities and gone on to serve them in new capacities: Maurizio Bevilacqua, the newly elected mayor of Vaughan; Joe Fontana, the newly elected mayor of London, Ontario; and Ken Boshcoff, elected as councillor at large for the city of Thunder Bay.

We wish our former colleagues well as they go on to tackle new challenges. We look forward to working with them and everyone elected yesterday across Ontario as we seek to build a progressive, responsible and compassionate Canada together.

[Canada Labour Code, October 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, as everyone in the House knows, there have been many bills and motions in the last number of years and I have consistently supported the principle of banning replacement workers. But the bill also needs to deal with the issue of essential services. While the bill mentions it, it really leaves things alone. So while the bill includes a section on maintaining essential services, it does not clearly define what would constitute an essential service.

In the Canada Labour Code, the threshold of an essential service currently is extremely high. “An immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public” is the definition as it is now in the labour code.

The bill leaves this definition pretty much intact and does not define it at all. That is problematic, because if we are going to change the system, we need to be clear on what essential services are and what that means. As others have stated and as we have stated many times before, in terms of the Sims report of 1999, the review of part I of the Canada Labour Code, most items at that time were agreed upon as part of the negotiations between workers and employers, except for the replacement worker aspect. This is something that we have known for some time.

Under the current labour code, there is no general ban on replacement workers. However, they cannot be used to break a union. This again is something that is quite understood by most people and these are some of the aspects. An important balance to be achieved in the collective bargaining process is something that negotiators tried to get to. Obviously this item was not agreed upon and it has remained as it is, but under the current labour code it talks about maintaining an important balance in the collective bargaining process.

This is what the current and previous bills were trying to do, to resolve this particular piece that was not agreed upon at the time. I wonder if it is not time to look at overhauling the labour code and bringing labour and employers together again to try to see whether an agreement can be reached, rather than continuing this debate in the House, which seems to have been going on for quite some time and some years and we seem to arrive at the same place.

We all know that B.C. and Quebec have replacement worker bans. In Quebec, the average work stoppage under the new system was 43.8 days between 2005 and 2008. Under the Canada Labour Code, the average was 41 days, so there does not seem to be a major difference between the replacement worker system that Quebec and B.C. have and our current labour code. So the argument that it creates a problem does not seem to hold if we were to go in that direction.

Also in Quebec there were 25 complaints to the labour relations board regarding unfair use of replacement workers, and 10 were upheld. Since 1999, under the Canada Labour Code, there have been 23 complaints, none of which were upheld and one is still pending. So even in this area where some people argue that it would cause problems and would change the situation dramatically, there does not seem to be a huge or major difference or problem from what is going on in B.C. and in Quebec under the current establishment.

Again, under this proposed legislation, managers and directors could still be used as replacement workers, much as they can now. However, other replacement workers could not be brought in, and that is the objective of the bill before us.

I think it is worth reviewing some of the arguments that have been made in the past against the banning of replacement workers, because we seem to discuss these over and over. One argument is that possibly more strikes could take place. However, that has not happened in Quebec, so we have not seen that as one of the results.

Another argument is that it will upset the balance in collective bargaining, giving more power to the union. That is something that I think we would have to agree or disagree on, depending on the angle from which one looks at it.

The other argument is that it does not allow for an employer to continue operating his or her business. Again, that is not necessarily the case, given the experience of the provinces.

I am going to come to the federal scene in a moment, because it is a little different.

The other one is about services that are not necessarily an immediate threat to the health and safety of the public but have economic consequences if they could not function, such as telecommunications, transportation, and so on. This is the other argument, that those things could happen.

In terms of banning replacement workers, those who are supportive of that argue differently. Unions argue that it would encourage employers to bargain more fairly. That may be true, but we need to have a proper dialogue at this point between the two sides to really go back and perhaps the minister needs to begin to look at this area.

As I said earlier, we need to define essential services to make it much clearer. Currently, essential services have a very limited definition under the Canada Labour Code. If we are going to change the whole structure, that also needs to be addressed. Right now, it must be an immediate threat to public health and safety.

During the OC Transpo strike in Ottawa, for instance, it was not deemed an immediate threat. Therefore, there was no intervention, and as we all remember, the strike went on for quite some time.

CN would not qualify either, because it is not an immediate threat.

In Quebec, it is much different, as others have said. The essential services council oversees the whole structure, so the employer and union both come before the council. The employer states that it is an essential service, but again, essential services are defined, and needs a certain number of employees to function. The union either states that it is not an essential service, or if it is, they indicate how many employees it would need to provide that service. Again, essential services are defined; it cannot be a generic thing. The council then makes a ruling on whether it is an essential service and the number of employees who must work.

While the Montreal metro was on strike, it was determined by the council that it must run during rush hour. This was the determination made as a result of that structure, and it was deemed to be not a threat or danger to the public but rather an economic issue. Therefore, that decision was made and it gives us an idea of how it would work.

If a replacement worker ban were implemented in Canada, we would need a similar framework, but we would also need a much clearer definition of essential services. That is something that I think this bill is lacking and it is problematic.

It is also important to note that there are differences between the federal and provincial jurisdiction. Provincial strikes do not have substantial impacts across the country as most in the federal sphere do.

As we saw with the most recent CN strike, it impacts many industries, the ports, commuter traffic and businesses right across this country.

The telecommunications companies, for instance, on strike would have a massive impact on our economy. Again the impact would be nationwide.

A strike at one plant or other isolated business does not have the same impact in a provincial context, although there are services that cut across the province and cities. Again, the definition of essential services there would be critical.

Any legislation brought forward on replacement workers would have to deal with the matter of essential services. I go back to that because it is very critical that we agree on what that means. There needs to be a discussion and agreement on that. Again, this legislation does not appear to have that.

What I would like to see, if at all possible, and maybe it will not happen in the constant bills and debate, is for the Minister of Labour to take the initiative to actually overhaul the labour code and to invite both sides to discuss and come to a mutual agreement and identify and have a specific definition for essential services and a structure that works for both.

It seems to me that we have gone down this road many times before and my concern is that we are not resolving it.