Rodger Cuzner

[Employment Insurance Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Cariboo--Prince George was well intentioned in trying to fill what he thinks is a loophole in the EI system, but he failed to dig deeply into why the extension was first created and why it serves a purpose today, even for only that small handful of people it impacts.

Before I get to the why though, I want to start with the who. The who is Michael Starr. For the benefit of the House, Michael Starr was a Progressive Conservative member of Parliament, first elected in 1952 for the riding of Oshawa. He served under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker as labour minister from 1957 to 1963. He ran for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1967. Bob Stanfield won the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party and while he waited for a byelection, Michael Starr served as the leader of the official opposition.

After politics, he had a great career. He was chairman of the Ontario board for workmen's compensation. He has a collection of civilian citations. There is an Ontario provincial building that is named after Michael Starr. This week, which by the way has been deemed Michael Starr week in Oshawa, people gathered in the Michael Starr building to celebrate Michael Starr's induction into the Oshawa Walk of Fame with all proceeds going to the Michael Starr scholarship fund.

I mention Michael Starr's name for a purpose. It was this Progressive Conservative minister of labour, the Hon. Michael Starr, who introduced this particular change that this private member's legislation would delete. He introduced this in 1959. I want to read from Hansard what he said at that time:

Ordinarily a person who had spent up to two years in penitentiary, would lose the benefit of unemployment insurance contributions, which would impose a further punishment in addition to those levied by the court. This disability is now removed and it will help a great deal in the rehabilitation of [our citizens].

That is what the Progressive Conservatives thought then. I am very interested in what progressive Conservatives think now. As Liberals, we do not base our decisions on ideology. We base them on evidence and sound reasons for doing or not doing something.

Let us look at some of the people who could be affected by the bill. First, it only affects in almost all cases people who are confined to provincial jail for a period of less than two years. We are not talking about hardened criminals. We are talking about those in jail for under two years. Seventy-five per cent of these people have been sentenced to less than three months. There are no murderers, no rapists, no child molesters, no crime bosses. We are not talking about their receiving EI benefits, getting any money; this is just about the grace period.

I could talk about several aspects of the bill that are going to undoubtedly deny other people because of the bureaucratic red tape and federal-provincial black holes that will be created, but I want to focus on the one main reason our party is against the bill.

Many people who end up in jail are there because of poverty. We could argue that it does not absolve them from their crime. However, if we are changing legislation that affects them, we need to understand the reasons they are in jail.

I am sure the Conservatives would like everyone to think they are cracking down on the Charlie Mansons in the world. Let us look at the one group that is most affected by the bill, and that is single mothers.

The National Council of Welfare's 2011 report, “The Dollars and Sense of Solving Poverty”, had a shocking statistic that almost sums up the position on this bill. Eighty per cent of incarcerated women are in there for poverty related crimes. Thirty-nine per cent are there for failure to pay a fine. Seventy per cent of incarcerated women are single mothers struggling with the high cost of living and as a result, crimes of desperation are sometimes committed.

United Way of Calgary issued a report in 2008 called “Crimes of Desperation”. It said this regarding women in jail for their failure to pay fines:

Incarcerating a woman for a poverty-related crime does punish her, but the punishment is for being poor and trying to cope by using a socially inappropriate but readily available means. Given this, the rates of re-offence are significant and costly.

When the member for Cariboo—Prince George appeared before the committee to testify about the bill, he said that he could not believe people would be in jail because of a fine. This is what he said:

I'm surprised, given our justice system, that people are thrown in jail for not paying parking tickets or fines.

Maybe my colleague would be surprised if people were thrown in jail because he is from B.C. which has a very low incarceration rate. However, since B.C. is one of the lowest, maybe he should talk to his colleagues next door whose rate of incarceration because of non-payment of fines is 60% higher.

According to a National Council of Welfare report in 2000, “Justice and the Poor”, in 1997 and 1998, over 40,000 people were in jail in Canada because of failure to pay fines. The same report showed that between 1984 and 1988 the major crime that was charged, accounting for 42% of all charges, was theft under $1,000. The number of charges for theft under $1,000 started to increase in August, when children are going back to school, and peaked in December, just before Christmastime.

The 1995 National Council of Welfare report, “Legal Aid and the Poor”, reported the fact that thousands of low-income Canadians are imprisoned routinely because they are unable to pay fines. The report found that people are still being sentenced for failure to pay fines because of traffic tickets and the Liquor Control Act because it does not take into account people's ability to pay. This report also stated:

The vast majority of people admitted to prison because of fines are there because they have no money to pay, and a disproportionate number are Aboriginal people.

Let us consider a scenario. A woman who is on EI is riding the C-Train on Thursday morning and is caught riding without a ticket because she is too cheap and did not want to pay the $2.50. For this she is fined $150. She goes to court and pays the $150 fine because she has the means to do so. She receives no jail time and her EI eligibility period is not affected.

Let us look at another woman, a single mom on EI who is having an extremely hard time making ends meet. She rides the C-Train and is caught without a ticket because she cannot afford to pay the $2.50. She is fined $150. However, unlike the woman in the previous example, she cannot afford to pay. She may have been charged with previous offences. She may not qualify for community service and therefore will be incarcerated at the Calgary Remand Centre. She could be there for a week and as a result not only would lose a week's EI benefits, but she could also lose her job and a week from the grace period.

The cost to incarcerate this woman at the Calgary Remand Centre is somewhere between $410 a day and $690 a day. Even without that, the cost would be about $1,400. Add in on top of that the cost for the state to look after her children while she is incarcerated. It would be $1,400 in incarceration costs to cover a $150 fine ,all for a $2.50 train ticket.

Maybe for my colleagues on the other side losing a week of EI may not be a big deal, but to this woman it is devastating.

In 1938 a royal commission investigated the penal system in Canada. It said, “Imprisonment for non-payment, when the convicted person has not the means or ability to pay, is, in fact, imprisonment for poverty”. That was in 1938. Therefore, I say to the progressive Conservatives on the other side, as much as it was right then, I still believe it is right now. I would hope that the progressives on the government side of the bench would move to make sure that this bill does not pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate I read into the record a statement by the judge who rendered the decision in the Canada Post judgment, and I could read it again for those who were not here at that time. It was with regard to the appointment of an arbitrator by the minister. In no way did I contest the minister's ability to appoint an arbitrator. It was the method in which she went about it. Just to read it into the record, the judge ruled that the minister:

...would like the exercise of ministerial power...to be unobstructed, unguided and not subject to any criteria or qualification or competence for the arbitrator.

He further went on to say that it:

...is not what is indicated by common sense, case law, the economy of the Act, or the specific labour relations context that govern the parties to the collective agreement.

Finally:

In the case at hand, the lack of transparency inherent in the appointment process followed by the Minister, the little evidence or rationale provided by the Minister and the laconic nature of her communications raise serious questions and indicate that the Minister appears to have excluded relevant criteria.

It appeared to me that the minister had been taken to the woodshed.

I brought this to her attention, and I said in no way was I questioning her ability to make such an appointment. However, in her response to my tabling those comments by the judge, she said the minister, in appointing the arbitrator, had not been impeached.

We want to set our goals pretty high. She had alluded impeachment. Bill Clinton alluded impeachment. Is that the standard the Government of Canada wants to set in making an appointment of an arbitrator? Why are the parties involved not included in at least going to a short list of arbitrators so that this process can be.... As egregious as it might be, what we are looking for, for the workers now, is at least the best of a worst-case scenario. Why are the sides in this arbitration not included in short listing a list of those they might be able to include?

If the minister wanted to put conditions in, she could put some conditions in that would work to the benefit of the workforce, not just the company. Maybe we could recognize the fact that these workers have not had a raise. They took concessions 10 years ago and over those 10 years have contributed $2 billion in savings to this company. Maybe that should be recognized through the arbitration. Maybe it should be recognized that the company sold off $2 billion worth of assets, and not a nickel of that went into the underfunded pension plan, $3 billion underfunded.

It is not just the current workers at Air Canada; it is those who worked for Air Canada their whole careers who are going to be hurt by that.

Maybe they should have put some concessions in there. Maybe they should have put some parameters around compensation for the CAOs. We know the golden handshake that the past CAO got was $80 million. We know the current CAO will pick up a $5 million bonus at the end of this month, just for being there for three years. They are certainly being well compensated while the workers continue to suffer from rollbacks they took as a union, hopefully to resurrect the company.

Let us make no mistake. Air Canada has always found a way through its labour problems. There are five different unions, and over the history of this company only six times have they ever found themselves in a strike position. One of those strikes was for three hours.

The minister reflected back on the strike of 1998 and talked about how it devastated this country and the economy of this country.

It was bad. The unemployment rate came down a full point. Interest rates came down. The books were balanced, and the deficit got a big chunk of money. It was really bad. That is 1998.

What is at the core of this? It is whether or not the government is going to deem Air Canada an essential service. I guess that is what it comes down to. The minister has referred this to the CIRB. This is the second time she has referred such a case to the CIRB. I do not think anybody believes this has anything to do with the health and safety of Canadians. I do not even know if the minister would believe that.

If the minister truly believed Air Canada was an essential service, she should have full confidence that the CIRB would recognize it as such and go forward with no work stoppage. It would not be allowed if she had confidence in that actual fact. The minister would be tabling an essential services bill, declaring Air Canada an essential service.

Let us put the cards on the table. Enough of the union bashing. Enough of going after organized labour in this country. Let us call a spade a spade. Let us put the essential services legislation here, if that is what the government intends.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I find unreasonable and unacceptable is the lack of respect the Conservative government holds for organized labour in this country. It is absolutely the prerogative of the membership to not support a contract that is brought back by the executive. The power lies in the hands of the membership. It is not the big corporate bosses. It is not big union bosses. They simply negotiate the deal, bring it back to the membership and if the membership rejects it, it is well within their democratic right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have read those same comments about the new low-cost flyer that the CEO has talked about. As Canadians we can take a great deal of pride in that our national carrier is setting its sights right at the middle. It aspires to be a mediocre airline.

As I have said before, when Canadians travel they want to feel there is a sense of security. We feel that when we get on a flight with Air Canada, that we are well served and respected by the staff. With all the hiccups and bumps, and MPs fly every week, there is still that sense that we know the workers want to serve those that board the craft on that day. They put up with tough things.

The reality of air travel in northern climates here in Canada, is that bad weather is just a fact of life. If there is a flight that cannot get into Toronto because of the weather, there is a good chance that the flight that is connecting with Halifax is going to be bumped too.

Yes, there is frustration. Is it the fault of the employees? Absolutely not. The employees did their part to make the company successful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the member for Bourassa. Every time he speaks in the House, he is motivated by Canadians who find themselves in hardship and by those who find themselves disadvantaged. This time he is standing up for organized labour, which has been put in a situation where its rights have totally been compromised by the government. I appreciate his insight into the issue and his continued fight for Canadians.

I have a couple of points. Let us understand the labour history of Air Canada. There are five unions at Air Canada and over the entire history of that company, there have been six strikes. That is a pretty good success rate in management and union negotiations. I would think they are very capable of finding ways through particular negotiations. One of those strikes lasted all of three hours.

The minister, in her comments, cited the strike of 1998 and the number of days the union had been out and the airline had been tied up. The workers were legislated back to work. She told us of the devastating impact it had on the economy and the way it devastated our country. In 1998 the unemployment rate came down by 1%, interest rates came down, the books were balanced and money was paid on the debt. Perish the thought.

Let us turn to the intervention the Conservative government has made on the economy. There are a million and a half Canadians without work. The unemployment rate has gone south, month after month, since last October. Canadians are screaming, “Please, no more help for the economy”. Goodness gracious, I have never seen the likes of that devastating year of 1998.

I want to talk about two things in particular. One is the appointment of the arbitrator. I talked to some of these guys before, while we were going for the votes. This is the time of year when most small communities that have a junior A or junior B hockey club are getting into the playoffs.

Being an old junior hockey coach, they used to assemble the coaches or the league executive and the executives from the team together. We would have the discussion around the table about all the refs we had access to and who we wanted to be the top referees assigned for the playoffs. We would go through and shortlist the list of referees. We would get down to about three or four different names. We would not assign them, but we would bring it down to a pool and then the league would assign the officials. There was input. Even at the junior B hockey level, there was some kind of input into who would negotiate how those games and those playoffs proceeded.

There is no communication with the government in entering into the undertaking we see before us now, the appointment of the arbitrator. We are not even seeing any kind of consultation with the parties. The minister has freewheel to appoint the arbitrator, and we saw what that yielded through the whole Canada Post strike. We are all reminded of what happened through the Canada Post strike.

I want to talk about that and I want to read into the record the decision rendered by the judge through the Canada Post dispute and the appointment of the arbitrator. The judge wrote that the minister “would like the exercise of ministerial power...to be unobstructed, unguided or not subject to any criteria of qualification or competence for the arbitrator”. That is a bit damning. I would think that would be the equivalent of taking the minister to the woodshed.

The judge went on to say:

This is not what is indicated by common sense, case law, the economy of the Act or the specific labour relations context that govern the parties to the collective agreement.

It was seen that the appointment the minister made was totally inappropriate.

I want to close with this last quote from the judge:

In the case at hand, the lack of transparency inherent in the appointment process followed by the Minister, the little evidence of rationale provided by the Minister and the laconic nature of her communications raise serious questions and indicate that the Minister appears to have excluded, as relevant criteria--

The Conservatives feel that is a success and is appropriate because they are going down the exact same road with this piece of legislation.

We know the minister has been chastised for her actions before. She should not have her nose in it anyway, but why could she not at least come up with an appropriate list of arbitrators?

I am sure Canadians are thinking that they have seen this movie before, that they know what the outcome is, and here we go again.

Let us talk about the direction of the arbitrator. There are three points.

The workers have taken a $2 billion haircut over the last 10 years. I wish the government would take into account that 10 years ago the workers took rollbacks and they are not getting the same wages now that they had 10 years ago. Ask any Canadian if that is fair. I do not think it is.

People may have grievances with Air Canada, maybe a lost suitcase a couple of years ago, or a missed flight because of a snowstorm, but we should not place those grievances on the workers at Air Canada. When MPs fly back and forth between Ottawa and their ridings every weekend, they get on an Air Canada flight. I am sure they have confidence that they will be safe and respected as a passenger. I think we are fairly confident in that. However, the workers have taken $2 billion in concessions over the last 10 years. Why is that not identified in the instructions to the arbitrator?

The company sold off $2 billion of assets, but still it left the employee pension plan underfunded by $3 billion. I would think that would make a current or past Air Canada employee nervous and upset.

I am going through a process now in my own community where the NewPage paper mill has shut down. It has been devastating. There are 800 people out of work because of it. It is the pensioners who have really taken a haircut because the pension fund had been underfunded by $150 million. They are going to see a reduction of approximately 40% in their pensions.

Why is there no provision within the arbitration to address the underfunding? If it is being sent to an arbitrator, let us make sure that the pension underfunding is being addressed.

Robert Milton and Montie Brewer made off like bandits when they left the company. Massive bonuses were paid out to these former CEOs. I do not know if the employees are going to have the same type of benefit when they leave with the pension in the shape it is.

I will make this final point. I guess it is about essential services because we find ourselves back here time and time again. The minister has used the Canada Industrial Relations Board as a puppet. She put the matter before the Canada Industrial Relations Board on this sham about health and safety concerns. I do not know if even the minister would believe that. If she was confident in that, why would the back to work legislation be necessary? The board would deem this an essential service.

Maybe that is the debate we should be having. What in fact is an essential service in this country? We should determine whether or not Air Canada is an essential service and get on with it from there.

By any measure, this is a piece of legislation--

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague's time as a union negotiator and his time within organized labour. I know that he has brought many collective agreements to successful conclusions for both management and union.

Through the course of this debate, it has been mentioned by members on the government side time and time again that offers had been brought back to the union and the union voted them down. That would justify coming forward with this back to work legislation. In doing so, Conservatives imply that there is no legitimacy in the vote of the membership. They are not showing any respect for the democratic right of those members to vote down a contract. I would like the member's comments on that position by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the minister would also know is that the appointment of the arbitrator was challenged. We know the judge's ruling in that particular case with regard to the minister's ability to appoint, without any consultation, an arbitrator. I quote:

In the case at hand, the lack of transparency inherent in the appointment process followed by the Minister, the little evidence or rationale provided by the Minister and the laconic nature of her communications raise serious questions and indicate that the Minister appears to have excluded...relevant criteria....

Is the minister not fearful that the same response will be given by the courts in this case?

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We would like a quorum call.

[Income Tax Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-377 on behalf of the Liberal Party and put on record some concerns around the bill. It is apropos that the bill has come forward today, as the Conservative government is bringing forward back to work legislation. Most Canadians will see this as just another brick on the load, another attempt to handcuff organized labour in this country. I see that in this piece of legislation.

The Liberal Party of Canada understands the importance and is supportive of measures that lend themselves to openness, transparency and accountability. We can look at the other type of organization in this country that is governed under a set of rules similar to that being put forward in this piece of legislation: charities. Charities are asked to post their financial statements for public view. We know it was a Liberal government that brought that forward in 1977. The legislation has served fairly well. But when we compare the provisions around charities in comparison to what would be asked now of organized labour, the provisions in this bill go far beyond what is expected of charities.

One thing that we can agree on in discussion of the bill is that this piece of legislation would be truly burdensome on organized labour and unions. It begs a great number of questions. If the intent of my colleague who put this forward is to try to ensure accountability and transparency in organizations that receive a tax benefit through the Income Tax Act, a question has to be asked. Why in drafting the bill did he not include professional organizations? Between organized unions and professional organizations, there is about $800 million in tax benefits. Professional organizations actually garner a greater share of that $800 million than do unions. If we are looking for accountability, we should ask for accountability for all those groups that benefit under section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The tax exemption is allotted for charities, professional organizations and unions.

We know that the burden would be placed on accounting for every expenditure over $5,000 not just on the current accounts, but on trust accounts of unions and union locals. We would end up with pensioners making small amounts of money and drawing small pensions from those trust funds. They would have to post the amounts being drawn from the trusts, creating concerns around privacy.

For anyone who does business with a union, those accounts would be posted. The small contractor who does maintenance and janitorial work at the local union hall would have to post what he draws from the union for services rendered. The next time they called for janitorial services, his competition would see what he is making. It will not be fair.

A number of concerns arise. The most egregious, and this brings us back to the discussion and debate we are having today on the back to work legislation, is how it would tip the field in disfavour of organized labour by making it necessary to bare all accounts.

If a company and a union local are in the midst of contract negotiations which are coming to a head, there is potential for a strike. The union then looks at what fiscal shape it is in. It has full access to the books and understands how long it could sustain any kind of a strike benefit. It goes forward to find a fair resolve through the open and fair bargaining process. However, knowing what is in the books and accounts of that union would be of particular benefit to the company. We do not believe that we can support any legislation that contains a measure which would give an unfair advantage to one group over another.

A number of different aspects of the bill are of concern. Certainly, we fully support the provisions with respect to openness and accountability.

There was an accountability bill brought forward in the last Parliament by our former colleague Albina Guarnieri. There were a number of issues surrounding the amount of salaries of some heads of charities at the time. The bill required that any salaries over $100,000 being drawn from a charity had to be posted and made public. Of course that bill died on the order paper with the coming of the last election.

Professional associations are much like unions. Members of associations receive a similar tax exemption to members of unions. We know that it is a requirement in most professional organizations. If people want to practice in a particular profession, then they have to become a member of that professional organization. There is a mandatory aspect to it. Therefore, it escapes me why professional organizations have not been included in the drafting of the bill to make it fair for all parties.

In closing, we support accountability and transparency. Over the years we have shown that we believe in those aspects. Many of the provisions for organized labour and charities are now in place. Had the member come forward with a bill that did not focus only on organized labour, but looked at professional organizations and professional associations as well and was even across the board, then we would be supportive of it. However, the way the bill is written now, we will not be able to stand and support it when the time comes to vote.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my colleague is answering questions and not reading prepared text. I really admire that in a member, especially a Conservative member.

I want to ask my colleague about a particular point. In past legislation that the minister has put forward, and I think back to the Canada Post legislation, she specifically prescribed in the legislation a wage rate for the employees of Canada Post. She stopped short of that in the upcoming legislation, but she asked the arbitrator to ensure that she recognized that.

If the minister wants to get that involved in the negotiations, does my colleague not believe she should also identify that the company should go back and top up the pension fund that has a shortfall of $3 billion? Does he think the pensioners at Air Canada exposed to this? The minister is looking after the company, but what about a big commitment to the pensioners at Air Canada, with the $3 billion shortfall in their pension fund?