SoVote

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

Dec/14/23 1:21:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, history is important. It tells us how we got here, and I certainly we remember Stephen Harper and his continual attack on workers. What worries me today is that, when we see investments such as those in the Stellantis plant, the Conservatives are always speaking up about it as though it is scab labour. Investments at Stellantis are not scab labour. We need to invest in a new battery economy or it is all going stateside to the United States. If we do not invest in this new economy, we are going to be left behind, so I am always shocked the Conservatives are undermining the new EV technology, which is going to have a big transformative effect, and the Conservatives are using it in speeches on scab labour. Someone is going to have to give them some basic lessons in labour.

144 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Dec/14/23 1:22:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a great honour to join in this debate in the chamber. Before I get into the meat of the issue with Bill C-58, I would like to extend, to all the people who work in this chamber and also those who will be working in the other place after, a very merry Christmas. It is that time of year. While there does not seem to be a lot of charity in this room right now towards one another, I do hope that, when we are back in our ridings and have had a moment to acclimatize ourselves to our communities, we have that spirit. A previous member talked about the need to help support people who are experiencing massive inflation and how difficult it is for many of our residents, whether they be pensioners on fixed incomes, families that have work or families that do not. This is a very tough economy. Right now, as we see with the food banks, this is a very tough time. I would encourage all Canadians to do what they can, if they are in a position to help. Prior to writing down a few comments from my notes on this debate, I took some time to review some of the other comments in Hansard on this particular topic. It was very interesting to note that, when the Liberals had a majority, from 2015 to 2019, they had very little enthusiasm for a bill of this nature. More so, recently, since the Liberals have had a sudden interest in this bill, I have noticed a pattern. Often, when a Liberal member speaks to this bill on the topic of replacement workers, that conversation quickly shifts to what the leader of the official opposition, the Conservatives, has to think or say about this bill. In reading the comments from various Liberal members, it is almost as if the bill is more about what the Leader of the Opposition would do then it is about banning replacement workers. Never before has the Liberal government appeared more obsessed with wondering how the opposition leader will respond. Further to that, I could almost hear some tears from the Prime Minister's office when they learned the opposition's view on this bill. We keep getting questions from people on the other side about it. We have been taking our time to study the legislation because this applies to every single category under federal workers. I have not seen, in my time as a member of Parliament, a massive strike at a federally regulated bank. Nor have I seen it in some of the other sectors. Let us just bear in mind that, of the total workforce, this legislation would only apply to roughly 10%, or less. We might lament that there are not more federally regulated workers, but each one of those workers is important. Many of them might ask if the legislation would materially affect their situation. We might have different views or perspectives from different industries, including the nuclear industry. I have not done that outreach with those folks who are federally regulated and who would be expected to work under this. It is probably because it has not been number one on their minds. However, what I have heard in my own riding, and I am sure many are federally regulated workers, particularly those who are, we would say, middle class and those who are working hard to join it, is they find themselves in a precarious situation. Why is that? Interest rates have gone up. Those who are fortunate enough to have a home are asking if they can maintain that home as their mortgage comes due for renewal. That is a difficult decision because, even if someone has to sell their home, where do they go? Right now, rents have doubled under the Liberal government. Regardless of whether people work where the applications of Bill C-58 would apply to them or not, that is not going to help them materially with that decision. There are other people who are working and who do not have a home. They are either subject to precarious situations, where they are renting, oftentimes putting themselves there just so they can put a roof over their head, not knowing when that will come due. Many of them are young and have dreams of home ownership. That has been washed away by this economy under this particular government. They see and hear articles, and little snippets oftentimes online, where the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that inflation could be better if there was not contrary monetary policy to fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is the direct area of the government. People wonder if their government is really on their side. The Liberals can put up things like Bill C-58 to say that, but that still does not materially help people deal with it. Again, there is the issue of gas prices and the issue of groceries, and we all know that the carbon tax affects that greatly. We have all heard about that Ottawa mushroom farm and the $100,000 carbon tax bill. The Prime Minister has been asked five times about how that bill gets paid, and he cannot answer. The rest of us all know that the bill simply gets handed to customers. Many of them are those very same workers that the government—

907 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:28:30 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/14/23 1:28:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not seen any news that says that there is a strike at that mushroom farm, so I am not sure what the member is talking about. We are dealing with anti-scab legislation and not mushroom farms.

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:28:47 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate and not a point of order. I would remind members that, when they rise on points of order, they should indicate which standing order they are rising on. The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

44 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Dec/14/23 1:29:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the mushroom farm, we know that the bill simply gets handed down to customers and makes those Ontario-grown mushrooms that much more expensive, which is causing the issue that we see today in Canada's labour market where, right now, when there are open negotiations, unions are rightfully saying that the cost of living has gone up. Of course, there is pressure for those workers to receive more. That is the reason we are here today. It is because the current government ultimately has created an environment where it does not work. Instead of actually addressing the issue by reducing its inflationary deficits, and instead of getting rid of its plan to quadruple the carbon tax, essentially raising it by 62¢ a litre, which are things that would tangibly affect every single Canadian, including those who are federally regulated under this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-58, the Liberals just decided to throw this out. It is something that they opposed long before. That is why we cannot let workers and Canadians and families fall behind. We know that the always-spending Liberal-NDP costly coalition will continue to be part of the problem and not the solution. Getting back to the bill, this legislation would potentially impact some of Canada's largest airports and ports far more severely in big cities like Montreal than it would in any city in my riding. That is not to say that labour disruptions in federally regulated sectors do not have an impact across our country, as they most certainly do. However, I am just recognizing that some of Canada's largest cities, most often represented by MPs from the government side, will typically deal with a federal labour disruption first-hand far more than those of us who have rural communities in our ridings. Therefore, as a B.C.-based MP who represents some federally regulated workers, I do ask these questions about the government's approach. Instead of addressing the main concerns about the inflation that we are suffering, why are the Liberals not addressing the root causes instead of just finding these small bills that affect only a very small amount of our population? Increasingly, with the Liberal government, we see that it is totally out of touch with where Canadians are struggling. When I see Canadians, particularly the citizens in my riding, in coffee shops, they will often simply say, “Where are my tax dollars going now? Are you getting good value for money?” The answer is that we just do not know. For example, in Ontario, there are two different electric vehicle plants. I, as a Conservative, love to see different competing technologies fight to see who has the best mousetrap to serve the population. However, when we suddenly add the extra element where the taxpayer and the government are writing big cheques to subsidize certain activities, we start to come to the place where people resent that they do not know the business case, do not know what the contract is for these large deals and that we are bringing in people from outside of Canada. In my province, when B.C. LNG was proposed, I met with union representatives who said their members were prepared to work and have the expertise, even though they had not done one before. They included boilermakers, etc. They all wanted those jobs, yet we are not in the position for that today. Rather than working for Canadian jobs and Canadian know-how, putting it to work and using tax dollars for a better outcome, what do we get? We get a government that is focused on the wrong things and not giving those opportunities to Canadians. Instead, its members are hiding at committee with the help of other parties, such as the NDP, to block those contracts from being presented. I lament that. I do hope that we have another chance to debate this bill so we can get into the meat of it.

675 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Dec/14/23 1:33:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), it is only the government that can bring bills for debate. In her statement on Thursday last week, the government House leader stated that the government would give priority to bills in the House “in their final stages of debate” including Bill— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:33:47 p.m.
Watch

Is this another point of order? I am going to see where the hon. member is going with this. I will come back to the parliamentary secretary as soon as the hon. member is done. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

42 words

Secretary

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Dec/14/23 1:34:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-57

Madam Speaker, the government House leader said that they would give “priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57”, so you can imagine my surprise—

40 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:34:26 p.m.
Watch

Can the hon. member again indicate which standing order he is speaking on? Is this a unanimous consent motion? Is this a point of order on something that arose in the House?

32 words

Standing

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Dec/14/23 1:34:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is Standing Order 30(6), which sets out that the government is the only one that can call bills for debate. I have a point of order on that. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

37 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:34:50 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. I need to hear the point of order. The hon. member has not told me if he is looking for unanimous consent yet. Is the hon. member asking for unanimous consent?

34 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Dec/14/23 1:35:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order and then I am going to move a motion.

17 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:35:35 p.m.
Watch

I want to get an understanding of what the hon. member is asking. If he is tabling a motion and asking for unanimous consent, he needs to be careful not to go into a lot of detail. I will go to the hon. member so I can have an understanding of what he is asking, because I am not quite sure yet. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

69 words

Understanding

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Dec/14/23 1:35:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-57

Madam Speaker, I am trying to get there, but I keep getting interrupted by members of the Liberal Party. I was saying that only the government can choose bills to come forward for debate. It has stated that Bill C-57 is a bill it urgently wants to be concluded in the House. It has not called it for debate today, so—

63 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:36:23 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member can bring a unanimous consent motion.

9 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Dec/14/23 1:36:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am now going to, assuming that I have the unanimous support of the House, move that, notwithstanding any— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:36:48 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. Hold on. The hon. member is able to move a unanimous consent motion if he wishes to. I will allow him to ask for unanimous consent. If there is none, then we will move forward and continue with the debate. I would ask the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon for the unanimous consent motion.

58 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Dec/14/23 1:37:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House— Some hon. members: No.

20 words

Standing

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 1:37:07 p.m.
Watch

There is already no unanimous consent. It is obvious that somewhere along the line something went wrong. I would ask members who are looking for unanimous consent to make sure they have it from all parties before they come to the House. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

54 words

Parties