SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 256 - Nov/27/23

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Nov/27/23 6:14:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am concerned about within this legislation is the 18-month delay in moving this legislation forward. Could the hon. member talk about how necessary it is to move this much faster than the 18-month delay within the legislation?

46 words

Mr. Brian Masse

Nov/27/23 6:14:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for London—Fanshawe for her work on the labour file. It is so important, because every job matters. We want to enhance a support for people to improve their working conditions. This is time lost that we cannot make up, so I would hope this would be done quicker.

56 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Nov/27/23 6:14:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code as well as the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations of 2012. In short, this legislation would prohibit the use of temporary replacement workers during work stoppages in federally regulated workplaces. After eight long years of these Liberals, Canada is experiencing an unprecedented level of labour strife. Indeed, in the past few years, there have been nearly 300 major work stoppages, completely unprecedented. This is no accident. It is a direct result of the costly policies of these Liberals after eight years, costly policies that have resulted in 40-year high inflation, the fastest increase in interest rates in Canadian history and the cost of everything going up, in no small part as a result of the Liberals' punitive carbon tax. After eight years of these Liberals, for everyday Canadian workers, work does not pay the way it used to. That is because everyday workers are seeing their purchasing power diminished in the face of 40-year high inflation. The cost of essentials, including for heat, fuel and groceries continues to go up. It will go up further if the Liberals get their way and quadruple their punitive carbon tax. After eight years of these Liberals, Canadian workers are struggling and they are hurting. In the face of these very real cost of living pressures that are a direct result of the costly policies of the Liberals, it is no wonder that we are seeing such a degree of labour unrest. It is not only the costly policies of the Liberal government that are creating labour unrest, it is also eight years of Liberal mismanagement and incompetence, including with respect to industrial relations. That incompetence and mismanagement was on full display this past summer when there was a strike at the federally regulated B.C. ports that lasted several weeks. It was a strike that was foreseeable months ahead of time. It was a strike that could have been averted, had there been real federal leadership but, as usual, the incompetent Liberal government was asleep at the switch. Consequently, the strike happened, a strike that caused huge disruptions to critical supply chains, hurting both workers and businesses, and costing the Canadian economy half a trillion dollars. That is the cost of Liberal mismanagement and incompetence, further underscoring that after eight years, the Prime Minister just is not worth the cost. Given the disastrous record of these Liberals when it comes to standing up for workers and helping them get by, we now have a desperate government that is plummeting in the polls, desperately trying to pretend that it actually cares about workers. It has trotted out Bill C-58. We know that the Liberals do not care about workers or at least they do not care about Canadian workers. They seem to care a lot about South Korean workers. Ironically, while the Liberals proclaim their opposition to temporary replacement workers, they voted against legislation produced by the NDP and the Bloc previously to do just that, but I digress. Simultaneously, as the Liberals move this bill forward, they are bringing in 1,600 replacement workers from South Korea to displace Canadian workers and good-paying union jobs at the Stellantis plant in Windsor. Even worse, thanks to these Liberals, taxpayers are subsidizing the 1,600 South Korean replacement workers to the sum of a staggering $15 billion. The Minister of Industry said that the $15 billion of taxpayers' money would create thousands of new jobs. What the minister conveniently neglected to say is that it would create thousands of new jobs for South Koreans and not Canadian auto workers in southwestern Ontario. Now onto the substance of this bill. This bill would apply to key sectors of the Canadian economy, including interprovincial and international railways, air transportation, maritime shipping, banking and other sectors. If this legislation were passed, it would create the possibility that key sectors of the Canadian economy could be ground to a halt. That is something that has to be weighed upon. What would the implications be, for example, of a weeks-long rail strike? What would the consequences be if an airline, such as Air Canada, were grounded for weeks? These are questions that need to be addressed. There are other possibilities that are realistic, which could happen. We know the cost of the port strike in British Columbia. It cost our economy half a trillion dollars. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to establish that this legislation would meaningfully benefit federally regulated workers or otherwise strengthen the system of federal labour relations. The Minister of Labour, in his speech at second reading, claimed that this bill would provide greater certainty and predictability in the collective bargaining process, thereby reducing the number and duration of strikes. However, the evidence based upon the experience of jurisdictions that have adopted legislation of this kind is, in fact, that it is the opposite. In that regard, I would cite data from Statistics Canada, which examined work stoppages in Canada between 2008 and 2016. Statistics Canada found that the provinces with the highest number of lost work days due to work stoppages were in the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, the only two provinces that have legislation of this kind on the books. I would further note a study from the Department of Employment and Labour, in 2007, that found that legislation of this kind increases the length and number of strikes. There is a significant study from 1999 that looked at 4,000 labour contracts from 1967 to 1993. It found that legislation of this kind actually increases the length of strikes by as much as 50%. The Canada Labour Code balances the rights of workers and the rights of employers. I have real concerns that this legislation would upend that balance in a way that is not good for employers and also not good for workers.

996 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Nov/27/23 6:24:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on a $66.7-million funding agreement that our government made with the City of Edmonton earlier this year to guarantee over 2,000 new and refurbished affordable housing units. That could not have been possible without the fantastic leadership of their amazing mayor, Amarjeet Sohi. Despite the fact that I have never heard the member stand up to talk about the importance of affordable, public housing in the House, we are moving forward with funding for the great City of Edmonton with their awesome mayor. For the fifth or sixth time today, we have not heard whether or not the Conservatives are actually in favour of banning replacement workers, also known as “scab workers”. This legislation would advance labour rights and workers' rights to make sure that the best negotiations, which always happen at the table, can operate in a fair, open and transparent manner. Cut and dry, does the member agree that we should ban replacement workers in Canada?

172 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/27/23 6:25:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if that useless parliamentary secretary bothered to listen to my speech— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

19 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/27/23 6:25:55 p.m.
Watch

Order. I want to remind the hon. member that this is exactly the issue we are having with keeping the House running smoothly. When parliamentarians use adjectives that are not proper to use when describing individuals, it creates havoc in the House. I would remind members to please be respectful in the House when they are speaking of other parliamentarians.

60 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/27/23 6:26:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will at least acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment had at least some integrity when he stood up in the House and acknowledged that his government had betrayed Ukrainian farmers.

38 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Nov/27/23 6:26:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not hearing the answer I was hoping I would hear in the member's response to my colleague's question. Is the member saying that he feels that replacement workers are a benefit to workers? I am not understanding what his stance is, exactly, on this bill, or if he and his Conservative colleagues will be voting in favour of this bill to ensure that protections are in place to support workers, have fair working conditions and have a fair wage.

85 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/27/23 6:27:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about this bill, particularly from the standpoint that it would prolong and increase the number of strikes. Very rarely are there winners when there are extended strikes. Workers lose out on paycheques. There is lost productivity. There is disruption to supply chains, and there is a loss of profit for employers, which often negatively impacts workers' wages. There are problems, potentially, with this bill. We want a bill that gets it right for employers and businesses and strikes the appropriate balance. I am not sure this legislation does that.

94 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Nov/27/23 6:28:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech my colleague from Alberta gave. I would ask him to reflect on how it seems like the NDP has highlighted a number of challenges it sees with this bill, although it plans to support it. We recently saw media reports that, if the Liberals do not get pharmacare done this year, it is willing to amend their confidence and supply coalition agreement. I wonder if my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton would have any reflections on whether the NDP has any integrity left in standing up for the principles that it supposedly ran on in the last election. It certainly seems to me as though NDP members are nothing more than sellouts.

119 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/27/23 6:29:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would concur with the conclusion drawn by my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. We have this costly coalition, which is making life less affordable for everyday Canadians, including Canadian workers. We have an NDP that has voted against the interests of everyday Canadians multiple times when it supported the Liberals' carbon tax increases. The NDP continues to prop up this costly government. The NDP will have to answer at the next election for why it is that it has sold out and propped up this corrupt Prime Minister.

92 words

Coalition

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/27/23 6:29:59 p.m.
Watch

Again, I want to remind the member to be very careful with the words he uses to describe members in the House. It does not do well for the debates we are trying to have in the House of Commons.

40 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/27/23 6:30:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the ruling that came from the Chair was very clear on the language that can be used and should not be used in the House. For any member to use the term “corrupt Prime Minister”, or “corrupt” in reference to anybody in here, violates the rules the Chair has put forward in the House. I would suggest that the member needs to either retract the the comment or be properly censured until he does. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

90 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/27/23 6:30:50 p.m.
Watch

I have members who seem to be weighing in before I even recognize them. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe is rising on the same point of order.

29 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

Nov/27/23 6:31:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would also advocate that, concerning the language used by parliamentarians in the House, hon. members need to remember the ruling that came forward from the Chair earlier. I know that I myself have a lot of adjectives in my head that I would like to use to describe some of the folks here, but I do not use them. I am very specific about it. I try to maintain decorum, and I would hope that they would do the same.

83 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/27/23 6:31:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I know one of the issues for some of my colleagues on this, and in light of the discussion that was had after question period today, is that, when it comes to the conduct and speech of members, there needs to be an equal application of the rules across party lines. The accusations the government House leader made during question period certainly call into question whether or not those rules are being fairly applied. Therefore, when it comes to decorum in the House, it is absolutely incumbent upon all members. Certainly for my part, I will always be happy to defend the things I say and endeavour to speak the truth.

119 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/27/23 6:32:11 p.m.
Watch

I will recognize one more speaker on this point of order, and then I will make my comments. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

24 words

Calgary

Mr. Greg McLean

Nov/27/23 6:32:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising in defence of my colleague as well, and I think there is a lot of evidence in the House of Commons that the Prime Minister has, we will say, misled the House. The member called somebody by a name that indicates they have misled, but he did not call any member of the House a liar, which of course is verboten in this House. Instead, he said that this person is corrupt, which means not following the rules. I appreciate where he is coming from in that respect.

93 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/27/23 6:32:43 p.m.
Watch

That specific word is a pretty strong word. It has caused disorder in the House. I would ask the member to please withdraw his comment. Before I give my comments, I want to remind members that the Speaker of the House will be coming back to the House. I personally have witnessed what has been happening with parliamentarians on both sides of the House, and I would remind members that we need to be more respectful of each other for Parliament to function smoothly. As the Speaker said in his previous statement, it is incumbent upon all MPs to work together and be respectful of each other in the House for us to be able to make sure Parliament works smoothly. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

129 words

Respectful

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/27/23 6:33:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I attempted to rise before you intervened to respond to the point of order. I would submit that, by any objective standard, the Prime Minister is corrupt. He has been found guilty twice of violating the Conflict of Interest Act and intervened in an RCMP investigation into his potential criminal wrongdoing by—

55 words