SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 268 - Dec/14/23

Dec/14/23 12:25:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we are going to talk about the topic of this bill and use the term “replacement workers”, I would just like to point out that they are temporary foreign workers, however people feel about them. I happen to think that temporary foreign workers are a good addition to our economy. However we feel about them, they are not replacement workers under this legislation. Either the members are confused or they are deliberately—

78 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 12:26:16 p.m.
Watch

I apologize. I had to turn up the volume on my speaker because I could not hear the hon. member that well, but I did get the gist of it. That would actually be a point of debate. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

46 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/14/23 12:26:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is certainly always interesting, when I speak the truth in this place, the level to which it triggers the left in this country. The response is certainly astounding. While we debate the concept of a bill that would supposedly ban replacement workers, although there are some clauses that we could drive an electric vehicle through, it is quite fascinating to listen to other parties here, in particular the NDP. This emphasizes the point I was making. I think it has to do with the credibility the NDP is claiming on this legislation. While the NDP's leader and its members stood strong, demanding answers, it took only a couple of weeks for them to back down. I wish I were kidding here, but instead of demanding that a parliamentary committee get the answers, get the contracts in this case and see the contracts, so that Canadians could know for themselves exactly what we were talking about, such as the number of replacement workers and what was negotiated on behalf of taxpayers, what did the NDP do? This is not just a private company or private individuals. This is a minister of the Crown and a government department negotiating to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in tax dollars. That is not the government's money. That is Canadians' money. Instead of demanding accountability, although they feigned outrage in this place, what did the NDP do at committee? The NDP backed down and said it would just file an ATIP. Instead of demanding answers, the NDP would just file an access to information request. The government has repeatedly refused to abide by the most basic measures of accountability to provide the answers that Canadians deserve. When it comes to the subject matter we are debating today, it comes down to the idea of trust. For the NDP, I do not know how its members can continue to trust the Liberals. For Canadians, it is increasingly clear that they cannot trust the left-leaning coalition that governs this country. When it comes to the best interests of workers, it is crystal clear, whether unionized or not, whether a new sector in the economy or a traditional one, the left-leaning coalition in this country does not have workers' backs. The good news is that Conservatives do. We are going to bring it home for Canadians.

398 words

Taxpayers

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Dec/14/23 12:29:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, this is the third time that my Conservative colleagues have mentioned the use of replacement workers, or foreign workers, in factories in Windsor or in battery factories. Bill C‑58 deals with something else entirely. That is crystal clear. Although the bill refers to “replacement workers”, I think that the Conservatives know that it is intended to prevent the hiring of scabs in the event of a labour dispute. Its aim is to finally prevent employers from using scabs during a strike or lockout and allowing the dispute to go on forever. That is unfair. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. The question is clear. We are talking about scabs. Will my colleague vote for or against Bill C‑58?

130 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/14/23 12:30:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Bloc has been willing to partner with the official opposition in the sense that we are demanding answers, unlike the New Democrats who have abandoned their principles and sold out their ideology to simply attain some tenuous grip on power— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

52 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 12:31:00 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. deputy House leader that I just reminded others a while ago that, when someone else has the floor, they should please wait until the next turn for questions and comments if they wish to contribute. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

48 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/14/23 12:31:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that they are demanding answers on this. It bears a close connection and comes down to the very fundamental idea of trust. We need to look closely at the legislation before us, but can we trust those who have proposed it? When it comes to workers, whether it is farmers in my constituency or energy workers or manufacturing in Ontario or coastal port workers, it is time for a party that supports workers and prosperity in this country. Unfortunately, they have been abandoned by Canada's left. However, they should not worry because Conservatives are here to bring it home for all Canadians.

107 words

Trust

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/14/23 12:31:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak on Bill C-58, so I will first put on the record that the Green Party supports this very important legislation. It is time for Parliament to act to protect workers' rights. I used to practise in the area of labour law with a firm in Halifax back in the day that represented trade unions, specializing in labour law. I would ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to clarify why we are spending so much time on this debate. I know he and other Conservatives have been told by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville that there is no connection in this bill whatsoever to having foreign workers come to any plant in Canada or any workplace in Canada. This bill is specifically to protect the right of collective bargaining and the rights of workers who have gone out on strike to not have what are called scab workers. That is a replacement worker. The workers at the Stellantis battery plant are not scab workers. Does the member agree?

195 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/14/23 12:33:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands well. I know she has had some health challenges. In the midst of a heated debate, although she and I would probably disagree on many things, I wish her well. I wish her a very merry Christmas and hope that her health continues to improve. My response is simple. If we had the answers to these very basic questions by being able to see the contracts and understand what labour negotiations were included in the contracts with Stellantis or the number of other major contracts that the government has signed but refuses to provide details on, we could definitely say exactly what the member is suggesting. The problem is that because the government refuses to give us the details, we cannot definitely say that is not the case and it is unfortunate that the NDP, especially, will not join us in demanding that accountability.

155 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 12:34:14 p.m.
Watch

On a point of order, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

13 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Dec/14/23 12:34:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am following up on the point of order from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle this morning. I have images of fundraisers that were conducted by a Speaker. I would like unanimous consent to table the images of these fundraisers involving a Speaker. It is the former Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and three partisan fundraisers that he was involved in as Speaker. I would ask for permission to table those documents.

79 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 12:35:00 p.m.
Watch

I am hearing “no”, so there is not unanimous consent. On another point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

26 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/14/23 12:35:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier, the Conservative House leader was asking to table documents of a Speaker and what he classifies as inappropriate behaviour. Now the Conservatives are saying no to tabling a document that shows inappropriate—

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 12:35:28 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but I have already asked and we have gotten a “no”. This is now going into debate. On a separate point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities.

40 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 12:35:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 44 to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

123 words

Motions

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 12:36:32 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Dec/14/23 12:36:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, today we are speaking to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, otherwise known as the anti-scab legislation that workers from across the country have been calling for since time immemorial. The NDP has put forward this legislation eight times in the last 15 years, and it has been defeated by Liberals and Conservatives alike. We are very happy and proud that we have forced the Liberal government to table the legislation this year; we look forward to seeing it become law as soon as possible. Workers around the world have only one power to balance the relationship with employers. That is their work, the labour they provide to make the products or provide the services that give their employers their profits. The withdrawal of that labour or even the threat of withdrawal is the only thing that levels the playing field in labour negotiations. When negotiations break down and workers feel that a strike is the only option left to them to obtain a fair collective agreement, if the employer brings in replacement workers to break that strike, the playing field is tilted steeply in favour of the employer. Employers have no real reason to bargain in good faith, or at all, with the workers. Labour relations in Canada have a long and deep history, and some of the most important moments in that history happened in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, in the Rossland mines. In the late 1800s, there was a mining boom across my riding, with gold mines in the South Okanagan and silver in the Slocan. Some of the richest mines were in Rossland. In 1895, the Rossland miners formed the first Canadian local of the Western Federation of Miners. That local went on to advance many of the first labour laws in British Columbia and Canada, laws that brought in the five-day work week and the eight-hour workday, as well as laws enforcing safe workplaces, the first workers' compensation act. Unrest in the mining camps resulted in the Canadian government sending Roger Clute, a prominent Toronto lawyer, to Rossland in 1899. He reported back that compulsory arbitration would be less effective than conciliatory measures, and after another trip to Rossland, his reports led to the federal Conciliation Act of 1900. That helped create the Department of Labour and the Canadian system of industrial relations. Rossland, and the miners of Rossland, helped build our system of labour relations across the country. When everyone in this place goes home for the weekend; when everyone in the country goes home at five o'clock, after an eight-hour workday; and when every worker in Canada knows they have the right to a safe workplace, they can thank the members of the Rossland local of the Western Federation of Miners. That is the benefit of having a healthy and fair system of labour relations. At the centre of that system is the right of workers to withdraw their work. Replacement workers, or scabs, destroy that system. Not only does hiring scabs take away any power that workers have to undertake fair negotiations, but it also often tears communities apart, especially small communities that have few other opportunities for good work. If workers go on strike in that situation and the company hires scabs, those replacement workers are taking away jobs from their neighbours and relatives. This increases tensions within the community, sometimes escalating into violence. Using replacement workers was common during early strikes, including in the mines of British Columbia, and there are too many stories of violence from those days. One of the worst stories, though, comes from relatively recent times, when the workers at the Giant Mine in Yellowknife went on strike in 1992. That gold mine had been the mainstay of the Yellowknife economy for many years, but a new owner demanded cuts from the union, then locked the unionized workers out. The company then hired replacement workers to keep the mine going and to keep the profits rolling in. Hostilities quickly rose, pitting neighbours against neighbours; this culminated in a bombing within the mine that killed nine miners, nine replacement workers. It is one of the worst mass murders in Canadian history. This is why we need anti-scab legislation. This is why British Columbia and Quebec introduced anti-scab legislation and have had it for decades. Critics say that this legislation may allow strikes and lockouts to drag on; in fact, it usually has quite the opposite effect. What impetus does the employer have to end a strike if they can use workers to keep things going, to keep those profits rolling in? If anything, outlawing replacement workers speeds negotiations up because both sides are on an even footing. The employer is losing profits, and the unions are losing pay. They both want to end the dispute as soon as possible. Many of the longest labour disputes in Canadian history have been those involving scabs, because the employer has no reason to bargain with the unions. This law would take effect in federally regulated industries, such as ports, railways, airports, telecommunications and banks. We recently had a dispute at the Port of Vancouver, and we are studying that issue in the international trade committee right now. Some witnesses have tried to paint a picture that labour is the cause of a declining reputation in Canadian supply chain reliability, that the unions dragged out negotiations and caused this strike. What we have heard at committee is exactly the opposite. First, this is the first strike at the Port of Vancouver since 1969. Most people in this chamber were not even alive then. The collective bargaining system has been working very well there. Second, delays in bargaining were clearly the fault of the employers or, rather, their association, the BC Maritime Employers Association. The BCMEA represents the employers at the bargaining table, but it had no mandate to make decisions. The union would respond with a counter-offer to the employers' offer within a day, but the BCMEA would take a week or 10 days to come back with its counter-offer. Negotiations dragged on. The strike began, and it took 13 more days to come to an agreement. If it were not for the delays and intransigence of the employers, we could have easily reached that agreement before strike action was necessary. We must remember that there are two sides to every labour dispute. The best, fairest and often shortest negotiations are those in which both sides have an equal balance of power. That is what Bill C-58 brings to the federal labour scene. The NDP is, of course, very much in favour of this legislation. We have worked hard and long to improve it and will continue to do that when it goes to committee. Our big concern now is the provision, within this bill, of a delay of 18 months before the legislation comes into force after passing through Parliament. We have heard no good reasons for this delay, and we will be making the case in committee to amend that part of the bill. If the use of replacement workers is illegal, that provision should come into force immediately. I can see no reason that corporations or unions need 18 months, a year and a half, to get their heads around this change to Canadian labour law. I remember one of the first debates I took part in in this place, a debate on an NDP private member's bill, in 2016, that was essentially the same bill we are debating today. I was so encouraged that we could be making such a big difference for workers, but I was profoundly surprised and disappointed when the Liberals and Conservatives defeated that bill. I have since, unfortunately, gotten used to disappointments in this place. However, with this bill, we have the opportunity to take a step toward hope. I hope we can pass this bill at second reading quickly, have the committee debate it in detail and pass it so that all Canadians can enjoy better labour relations across the country. With that, I would like to wish everyone here and everyone in the wonderful riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay a very happy Christmas and a peaceful holiday season full of love and good cheer.

1406 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 12:46:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to just pick up on the member's last comment, in regard to the importance of the legislation and how wonderful it would be to actually pass it through to the committee stage. The Conservatives like to go around the country telling Canadians that they are pro-worker, that they are there to support workers. I think it would be a very strong, powerful message, collectively, from the House and all political parties, if we could see this legislation ultimately collapse the debate. Then, we could allow for it to actually go to committee before Christmas. Would the member not concur with the thought that sending this, in a unanimous way, to a standing committee before Christmas would be a wonderful gift for the workers in Canada?

132 words

Worker

Mr. Richard Cannings

Dec/14/23 12:47:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I often say this, but in this case, I am very happy to agree with the member for Winnipeg North that we should move this forward. This may mean including it in one of our famous omnibus unanimous consent motions that happen at the end of sessions, but we should be passing this soon, for all the reasons I outlined. I hope the Conservatives will join us in that effort. They try to make it sound like they are on side with the workers of Canada, but every time we have debate and a vote in this place on workers' rights, they vote against it. I cannot remember any single instance of them voting against back-to-work legislation.

121 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Dec/14/23 12:48:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. It is not a new thing. Sometimes we say that we are wasting our time here, constantly waiting for the federal government to take action. Here is another good example of that. Quebec has progressive measures and protects workers' rights, but the federal government is once again dragging its feet and slowing us down. Earlier, my colleague from Winnipeg North said we should send this bill to committee right away and get it passed fast. I would like to remind my colleague that, in 2021, special legislation was invoked to end the Port of Montreal strike. The Liberal Party introduced that bill with the Conservative Party's support. So much for today's little shenanigans. The Liberals think they are standing with workers and defending workers' rights. Here is my question: Should we get rid of the 18-month delay as soon as possible once this bill goes to committee?

182 words