Also known as International Workers’ Day, May 1, a national holiday in more than 80 countries, recognizes the achievements of the global labour movement.  Sadly, under the guise of “austerity,” many of these gains have been threatened.

“May Day 2013 – and beyond – is a time for Canadians to ‘push back’ against the various moves by the Conservatives to weaken everything from union rights to pay equity, public pensions to EI,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Also, the expansion of temporary foreign worker programs has been dragging down workplace rights and protections, along with wages.   The program changes announced in the budget implementation bill will mean nothing if, as in the past, enforcement is weak.

The Conservatives have sabotaged employees’ right to strike by bringing in back-to-work legislation against Air Canada, Canada Post, and Canadian Pacific Railway workers, and have refused to support workers victimized by mainly transnational corporations exporting jobs to lower-waged countries.

Bill C-377, now in the Senate, will allow the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to police how trade unions spend money over $5000.  Even Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has called this “bad legislation, bad public policy and a diminution of both the order and the freedom that should exist in any democratic, pluralist and mixed-market society.”

As well, Canada’s minimum age laws are woefully inadequate.  In some provinces, these laws have actually been weakened, dropping the minimum age to 12 years.

“The Green Party reminds Canadians of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that placed collective bargaining under the protection of the Charter, and stated clearly that labour rights are human rights,” said Green Party Labour and Employment Critic Brian Timlick. “We fully support those rights and are working to create a society where they are genuinely respected and put into practice.”

“We support the impressive efforts of groups like Common Causes and the Québec Coalition against Employment Insurance Reform which have launched rallies against recent EI and other cuts,” said May.

The post Greens: Conservatives Working Against Workers appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“With the increase in back-to-work legislation, the collective bargaining process is at risk of being rendered ineffectual,” said May.

“Labour rights are human rights,” said Ms. May, “The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to collective bargaining is a constitutional right guaranteed and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

The Harper Government has forced back-to-work legislation five times in the past five years: for Air Canada, Canada Post, and the Canadian National Railway.

“There is a disturbing trend where as soon as worker’s begin to organize, the Harper Government swoops in and forces everyone back to work.  It would be more appropriate for the government to allow the employers and unions to at least try to come to an agreement before such drastic measures are taken,” said May.

“It is not the federal government’s role to undermine negotiations. This has been happening far too often,” said May.

The Green Party of Canada supports pay equity and every worker’s right to fair wages, healthy and safe working conditions as well as working hours compatible with a good quality of life.

The post Labour Day brings Concern over Erosion of Workers’ Rights appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As my colleague from Ottawa South just mentioned, we have now seen repeated interventions that are undermining the fabric of collective bargaining rights in Canada.

If the hon. parliamentary secretary and her government believe that Air Canada is an essential service, that Canada Post is an essential service and that CP rail workers and the Teamsters Union are an essential service, then why do they not declare them essential services?

Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House yesterday and I presented earlier today as well about how the Minister of Labour has been listening, and listening not just to unions and big union bosses but actually listening to Canadians.

What Canadians are most concerned about is our fragile economy and making sure they have a job. That is why we are moving forward with respect to this back-to-work legislation to make sure the rail is moving, to make sure jobs are protected and to make sure we can grow the economy.

The post Restoring Rail Service Act (Bill C-39) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

1. the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
2. not more than two hours shall be allotted for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, following the adoption of this Order;
3. when the bill has been read a second time, it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole;
4. any division requested in the Committee shall be deferred until the end of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill;
5. not more than one hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill;
6. not more than one half hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, provided that no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes at a time during the said stage and that no period for questions and comments be permitted following each Member’s speech;
7. at the expiry of the times provided for in this Order, any proceedings before the House or the Committee of the Whole shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage, then under consideration, of the said bill shall be put and disposed of forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and no division shall be deferred;
8. when the Speaker has, for the purposes of this Order, interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the Members shall ring for not more than thirty minutes;
9. commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown;
10. no motion to adjourn the debate at any stage of the said bill may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown; and
11. during the consideration of the said bill in the Committee of the Whole, no motion that the Committee rise or that the Committee report progress may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, we are debating time allocation on a bill we have not yet seen. We have a sense of déjà vu. We also debated time allocation on a bill we had not seen with regard to the Air Canada pilots strike. In this light, I noted the hon. member called the current approach of the Minister of Labour predictable. My concern is that it is predictable to management as well as to those of us on the opposition benches. As it is predictable to management, it decreases the likelihood of collective bargaining rights being respected and collective bargaining working.

Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North share my concern?

Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt it is an attitude issue. In good part, the government has brought in legislation that would have a very serious and severe impact on thousands of workers. This talks volumes about the government’s ability or desire to have a fair process. The government’s track record has demonstrated that it is not prepared to ensure that the system is fair. The legislation being brought in and the manner in which it is being brought in does not surprise me. This is a government that has moved some form of time allocation some 20-plus times since it achieved its majority government in just over a year, which is unprecedented. People of all political stripes in the House should be concerned.

It is time Conservative backbenchers start reining in the Prime Minister and their cabinet. Collectively, they could have a voice if they chose to use It.

The post Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The mainstream media is marking its report cards for the one-year anniversary under Harper Conservative majority rule. The bromides are calming—the Globe and Mail editorial gives the Conservative majority a positive spin—“more ups than downs”—while its reporter, John Ibbitson, wrote a piece nearly oozing with reverence for the prime minister.

It is clear we all have our biases. I only entered politics back in 2006 because I feared what a Harper minority government would do to decades of environmental law and policy. I have been very critical of the cuts to climate science, retreat from Kyoto commitments, and sabotage of climate negotiations internationally since 2006. But with that bias out in the open, I believe the last year has been the most devastating in Canadian history for parliamentary democracy, for charter rights, to collective bargaining and trade union rights, for evidence-based public policy, and for environmental law and protection. And, of course, the damage to climate policy was accelerated.

Here’s the evidence:

1. Abuse of democracy: Every piece of government legislation introduced since the election has had time allocation applied to limit debate, smashing through historical records. Parliamentary committees have been meeting increasingly in secret. Omnibus legislation, forcing massive legislative changes through one bill, has been used, further depriving Parliament of adequate time to analyze and improve legislation. The auditor general’s report on the F-35 issue makes it clear that Parliament was not given accurate information about the cost of the fighter jets, even after the true cost was known within cabinet. No need to detail here the simmering scandal of electoral fraud and robocalls.
2. Charter rights: The omnibus crime bill included nine separate pieces of legislation. Many sections involving mandatory minimum sentences arguably violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, the new refugee law, C-31, will require political refugee claimants arriving by boat (or anything the minister deems as “irregular entry”) to face automatic internment for up to a year without access to judicial review. This will include children between 16 and 18.
3. Collective bargaining: The intervention by the federal Parliament into Air Canada labour disputes (twice) and Canada Post’s lock-out of its workers undermines labour rights. So, too, does the Conservative party-supported private member’s bill to impose more financial transparency on labour unions than on other professional groupings, such as law societies.
4. Control of information: The Harper majority government has been the most closed and non-transparent in history. The number of people working in the Prime Minister’s Office has expanded, with its now over $10 million per year budget. Most of the PMO staff are described as “information officers”. Their job is to block access to information. No public servants or government scientists can speak to the media without permission; neither can they speak to MPs.
5. Evidence-free decision making: Once again the omnibus crime bill must be mentioned. A “tough on crime” agenda was unhinged from the reality of falling crime rates. No amount of evidence from criminologists that mandatory minimums do not reduce crime rates, nor that it was unwise to pass the bill without estimates for the cost of new prisons, made a dent in the Conservative majority mantra that any opposition MP who objected was siding with criminals and showed no concern for victims. The budgetary cuts are now disproportionately targeting Statistics Canada. Who can deny that the Harper brand of Conservatism is an evidence-free zone?
6. Assault on the natural world: The gloves are off. Harper and company have taken aim at environmental groups and First Nations opposed to the Enbridge supertanker scheme calling them “radicals” and labelling MPs who oppose the project as “against Canada”. While selling out our resources to China, without national security checks, Stephen Harper has promised Beijing the Enbridge project will proceed. In order to achieve this goal, come hell or high water, environmental laws are being eviscerated. And the sweeping changes are concealed in C-38, the budget implementation bill. The National Energy Board will now have jurisdiction over endangered species and navigable waters, if they occur in the way of any proposed pipeline. Meanwhile, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is repealed (under C-38) with an entirely new approach to replace it. The new law will restrict the study of impacts of major projects to areas “under the legislative authority of Parliament”—confined to fish and migratory birds. Where, in the past, an environmental review at the federal level was the most rigorous and comprehensive, new federal reviews would be a joke by Third World standards. The removal of habitat protection under the Fisheries Act is also part of the budget bill. So too, repealing the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act. Meanwhile, $8 million has been freed up to harass environmental charities.

Canadians must not remain silent. It is not only one area of public policy or one ecosystem that is threatened. Canada, our values and our traditions, are at risk.

Elizabeth May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada and the MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Originally published in the Georgia Straight.

The post A devastating first year of Conservative majority rule in Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We know this is the inevitable conclusion of this legislation. Would the minister not reconsider and allow an amendment, given that it is her preference as she has just stated, to allow names of arbitrators to be put forward? Considering this is something she can do within her discretion, why not ensure it?

There is nothing in the way clause 11 is drafted to suggest that the minister will put forward those options to management and labour.

Hon. Lisa Raitt: Mr. Chair, while I appreciate the request again by the hon. member, the answer still remains no. We will not be agreeing to any amendments to this bill.

The post Protecting Air Service Act (Bill C-33) (C) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The hon. parliamentary secretary referred to constituents. I have constituents too and a lot of them work at Air Canada. I know them to be very hard-working. They have accepted a lot of concessions to help the employer, two billion dollars’ worth of wage concessions over the last 10 years.

I feel very grateful to all the people because I happen to use Air Canada to travel between my home in British Columbia and here. I will admit to the House that I am terrified of flying. I approach a flight with the same anticipation that most people have when visiting their dentist. It is only on Air Canada that I have any margin of comfort. I feel very good about the safety record, the work of the mechanics, and the work of the pilots. I would like to pay tribute to how hard they work and to express my regret to the Minister of Labour that we are not allowing them to fulfill their collective bargaining rights in a way that allows a fair process.

This is a slender piece of legislation, but it packs a punch. What we are doing with successive pieces of legislation like this is undermining collective bargaining rights in Canada. I am sure the public sector workers are watching what is happening here. As we saw with the back to work legislation for Canada Post, we are seeing a pattern which undercuts labour rights in the country.

Getting to the specifics of this legislation, I do not know that I have ever seen a bill that includes clauses like clause 4 and clause 19. Back to work legislation is usually about a situation where there has been a work stoppage. In this case, we have anticipatory work stoppage legislation. Clause 4 deals with the air service operations. Clause 19 deals with pilots. In both cases, the legislation that we are called upon to pass tonight assumes that if the legislation comes into force and there is no strike or lockout, at that moment there would be a freeze. A strike would not be allowed nor would a lockout be allowed.

That certainly strikes me as unusual in the frame of back to work legislation that we have seen in the House in the 41st Parliament and in labour relations in general. Anticipating a strike or labour action undercuts labour relations. From a management point of view, when management knows that back to work legislation is in the offing, it certainly makes it easier not to work as hard as it should in a collective bargaining relationship to come to terms and to meet each other halfway.

I accept what the hon. Minister of Labour has said, that in a conciliatory process in which a very respected judge was acting as a conciliator, a deal was struck but was rejected by the workers. That is their right. Could we not now use those mechanisms again and give those workers the chance through free and fair collective bargaining rights to choose to accept or reject the terms of an agreement that affects everything about their working life?

I am very concerned as well by the final offer selection provisions in clause 11. I am wondering how we have come to something which is so extremely arbitrary. The hon. member for Cape Breton–Canso has read into the record how the judge felt about the previous arbitration decisions in relation to Canada Post that were forced through the House last June. We see it again here.

Certainly, even at this late hour, could we not see an amendment to this legislation that would allow us to ensure that normal collective bargaining rights are pursued in the choice of an arbitrator?

The hon. parliamentary secretary referred to working with a hockey team in his previous life. In my previous life I did labour law in Halifax with a lovely firm that was then called Kitz, Matheson, Green and MacIsaac. It was the only big downtown establishment law firm that did labour law from the union side. We did a lot of collective bargaining and a lot of arbitration. The first step was always the choice of the arbitrator. The union and management each would put forward a list of names. There would be a process. There would usually be a bit of back and forth in choosing the right arbitrator.

In this instance, we are very rapidly moving to the most strict and draconian approaches to arbitration. It is binding arbitration with final offer selection. On top of that, neither the union nor management will have any input as to who the arbitrator is.

I would ask the hon. Minister of Labour if she could respond to this question: Even at this late stage with the process before the committee of the whole, would the minister be prepared to consider an amendment to allow the union and management to each put forward a list of arbitrators before the selection is made?

I am not sure the minister heard my question. Would she consider an amendment to allow a list of acceptable arbitrators’ names from management and the union to be put forward to replace what we now see in clause 11?

Hon. Lisa Raitt: Mr. Chair, I can say that the practice we followed with respect to Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers was that we did indeed ask both parties for consultation on arbitrators when we first set out to appoint an arbitrator. We received their advice not once, but twice. I see no reason why we would not take the same approach. However, we do not need to make any amendments to this bill in order for that discretion to be exercised.

The post Protecting Air Service Act (Bill C-33) (B) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

If the government consistently has back to work legislation when there is a threat of a dispute, how will we not have so undermined labour-management relations to have irreparably broken them and hurt this economy?

Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the best solution is one that the two parties come to themselves. 

Despite hard bargaining, these parties have been unable to come to a resolution. That is why we are taking action to ensure that the Canadian public’s interest is upheld and that we are managing the economy and staying focused on that, as opposed to what the opposition wants to do.

The post Protecting Air Service Act (Bill C-33) (A) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

1. the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
2. not more than two hours shall be allotted for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, following the adoption of this Order;
3. when the bill has been read a second time, it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole;
4. not more than one hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill;
5. not more than one half hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, provided that no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes at a time during the said stage and that no period for questions and comments be permitted following each Member’s speech;
6. at the expiry of the times provided for in this Order, any proceedings before the House or the Committee of the Whole shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage, then under consideration, of the said bill shall be put and disposed of forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and no division shall be deferred;
7. when the Speaker has, for the purposes of this Order, interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the Members shall ring for not more than thirty minutes;
8. the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown;
9. no motion to adjourn the debate at any stage of the said bill may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown; and
10. during the consideration of the said bill in the Committee of the Whole, no motions that the Committee rise or that the Committee report progress may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, in the context of this debate, my largest underlying concern is that we are undermining collective bargaining rights. However, when I focus on pilots, what comes to mind is the great hero “Sully” Sullenberger who landed a plane on the frozen Hudson River. One of the things that came to light in his interview after that great feat of heroism was his concern that pilots were not being paid enough, that the competition in the U.S. was allowing pilots to fly passengers when earning under $20,000 a year and that the cutthroat nature of the industry meant that passenger safety was at risk.

If the government is going to intervene, would it not be nice if just once it intervened on the side of increasing wages instead of undercutting the workers in favour of management? If that were to happen, then maybe there would be an incentive for management to come to a fair term and deal with its workers.

In this case, does the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso think we might be undermining safety?

Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, when my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands made reference to landing a plane on a frozen body of water, I thought for sure she was speaking of J.A.D. McCurdy on Baddeck Bay .

Her point is absolutely valid and real. With the actions undertaken by the government, we certainly have not see anything that would lend itself to increasing safety within the operational guidelines of Air Canada. Rather, it has been, “What can we do to help our big corporate friends and certainly help along the management at Air Canada?” Whether intended or not, that is what has happened in this case.

The post Air Service Operations Legislation (B) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

1. the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting; 
2. not more than two hours shall be allotted for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, following the adoption of this Order; 
3. when the bill has been read a second time, it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole; 
4. not more than one hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill; 
5. not more than one half hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, provided that no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes at a time during the said stage and that no period for questions and comments be permitted following each Member’s speech; 
6. at the expiry of the times provided for in this Order, any proceedings before the House or the Committee of the Whole shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage, then under consideration, of the said bill shall be put and disposed of forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and no division shall be deferred;
7. when the Speaker has, for the purposes of this Order, interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the Members shall ring for not more than thirty minutes; 
8. the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown;
9. no motion to adjourn the debate at any stage of the said bill may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown; and 
10. during the consideration of the said bill in the Committee of the Whole, no motions that the Committee rise or that the Committee report progress may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown. 

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. minister’s presentation on the Air Canada labour disputes with two unions representing the pilots and mechanics.

I share the concerns of the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso that we in the House repeatedly are interfering in independent collective arrangements between employers and employees in areas that do not represent essential services.

As inconvenient and disruptive as it would be, and I agree with the minister, I have tremendous concern for people who have planned March break vacations, but where does this stop? We are clearly undermining free and fair collective bargaining rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the B.C. hospital workers case that collective bargaining rights were human rights, and I am afraid we are undermining something very essential to the health of this society.

Hon. Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a good point of when interventions occur. Taking a look at the history of Parliament since 1950, Parliament has intervened between 31 and 35 times with respect to these matters. Normally they are in the transportation and the logistics field. That is just a reflection of the reality in 1950, as it is now. We are a large geography. We depend upon our interconnectivity, both in air and rail, and we have to ensure that we keep both people and goods moving.

That is compounded by the reality of the economy and the economic recovery today, and that is why we need to intervene in this matter.

The post Air Service Operations Legislation (A) appeared first on Elizabeth May.