SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

Feb/26/24 3:43:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present, in both official languages, a petition signed by the advocates of a basic income guarantee. The petition calls upon the Government of Canada to begin immediate negotiations with the Government of Prince Edward Island to develop and implement a basic income guarantee demonstration program in the province of P.E.I. that would be administered, monitored and evaluated for at least five years. The petitioners note that the 2020 final report of the Special Committee on Poverty in PEI recommended initiating these negotiations. The report has the support of all political parties in P.E.I. The demonstration program would benefit all of Canada, as poverty is the primary social determinant of health and requires bold and creative approaches to understand and address its root causes and consequences in Canada.

138 words

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

Feb/26/24 3:44:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians. The petitioners observe that, for the past eight years, the Liberal government has consistently put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims. This includes when it failed to respond to the Supreme Court's unjust Bissonnette decision. This decision struck down a common-sense Harper law that gave judges the discretion to apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods to murderers convicted of multiple murders, to take into account each life lost. The petitioners call on Parliament, as a modest response to the Bissonnette decision, to pass Bill S-281. This would prevent convicted murderers from applying for parole year after year once they complete their minimum sentence.

120 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Feb/26/24 3:45:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as members know, one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada is our Indo-Canadian community. Through that, along with the wonderful trade, economic ties and personal ties between Canada and India, there has been an increase in demand for direct flights between Canada and India. I am presenting a petition from many constituents who would like to be able to see a direct flight from Winnipeg to India. At the end of the day, I think it is fairly well established that, through that wonderful relationship between the two countries and the airliners, and the idea of competition, we will hopefully see more direct flights.

108 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/26/24 3:45:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of folks across Waterloo Region, who are calling upon the House of Commons to demand an immediate ceasefire in what they call the Israel-Palestine conflict. They also call for Israel to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip and authorize the creation of a humanitarian corridor and emergency humanitarian intervention. They want the House to call for Israel to meet its commitments under the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law. They want the House to call for all measures necessary to protect civilian life, both Israeli and Palestinian, and to help foster a climate conducive to building a lasting peace.

115 words

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

Feb/26/24 3:46:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 2064, originally tabled on January 29, 2024, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

33 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/26/24 3:47:17 p.m.
Watch

Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned question be deemed to have been made an order for return and that it be tabled immediately? Some hon. members: Agreed.

31 words

Feb/26/24 3:47:31 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2064—

Questioner: Sameer Zuberi

With regard to Global Affairs Canada’s funding to the West Bank and Gaza: (a) does the Representative Office of Canada to the Palestinian Authority receive a budget for spending on aid related projects, and, if so, how much is this budget in (i) 2023-24, (ii) 2024-25; (b) what oversight, if any, does Global Affairs Canada (GAC) in Ottawa exercise over the Representative Office of Canada to the Palestinian Authority in terms of (i) vetting grantees, (ii) approving projects, (iii) auditing projects; (c) how does GAC ensure that funds are not misappropriated by terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; (d) what are the details of Canada’s “enhanced oversight policies” regarding international aid to the West Bank and Gaza; (e) what are the details of all grants Canada is currently providing to organizations in the West Bank and Gaza, including, for each, the (i) funding recipient organization, (ii) amount, (iii) purpose of the funding or the project description, (iv) local implementing partners; (f) is the government providing funding to World Vision for its work in Gaza via the Humanitarian Coalition, and, if so, how much funding is it providing; and (g) what action is being taken in response to intelligence reports detailing Hamas’ use of Gaza hospitals for terror, including what kind of reviews GAC is taking to examine funding provided to humanitarian organizations that were active in Gaza hospitals?

245 words

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

Feb/26/24 3:47:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

15 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/26/24 3:47:38 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Feb/26/24 3:48:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, workers coming together in solidarity, negotiating collectively and at times making the very difficult decision to withhold their labour is something that has raised the material condition of working people in this country for generations and generations. This is not a tactic or a strategy; this is something that is defined in our Constitution. It is a constitutionally protected right, and yet we have seen again and again consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments undermine the rights of workers in many ways. One of those ways is back-to-work legislation, which we have seen repeatedly in this place. Another of the most pernicious ways workers' rights are undermined is the use of replacement workers, and that is the topic of Bill C-58, which I rise to speak about today on behalf of the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Replacement workers are workers who are brought in by the employer during times of work stoppage, during lockouts and strikes. They are brought in to do the work of unionized workers. When employers use replacement workers, or as they are colloquially referred to, “scabs”, it undermines the ability of unionized workers to negotiate and to secure improvements with their employer through the collective bargaining process. The use of replacement workers also has a profound impact on communities, especially small communities like the ones I represent. It increases the risk of violence on picket lines. Most significantly of course, it removes the incentive on the part of the employer to bargain in good faith with the employees. The use of replacement workers has been documented as lengthening the duration of labour disputes. All of these are reasons we need to pass the historic legislation before us. It would be a very significant contribution to the long legacy of codifying workers' rights in Canadian law. It is one that would allow workers to improve their lot at a time when working people in this country are falling farther and farther behind. People are having trouble putting food on the table. People are having trouble accessing the services they need, like pharmacare or dental care, which are things we are also fighting for in this place. I am exceptionally proud that it is the NDP that once again has forced this historic legislation before us. In fact the NDP has brought forward legislation to ban the use of replacement workers not once, not twice, but eight times over the past 15 years. Each time it has come forward for a vote, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have voted against it, most recently in 2016. Now we have managed, as a party born of and founded by labour, to create the conditions whereby the government has had a change of heart. It has seen the value of banning replacement workers and has chosen, rightly, to work with us to make sure this historic legislation passes through this place. I cannot say the same for my Conservative colleagues. They are at a very important juncture when it comes to the legislation; the Conservative Party wants the support of working people, and there is a bill before us that is supported by all of the unions in Canada, by the vast majority of working people working under collective agreements. Conservatives have a choice to make, which is whether they stand with those people to give them an important tool for ensuring that their collective bargaining rights are upheld and their constitutional rights are protected during times of labour dispute, or whether they side with the employers who wish to continue with the status quo and a situation whereby they are able to bring in non-union workers in order to continue production at their facilities. If production is allowed to proceed with the use of replacement workers, the leverage, the negotiating power, of unions is greatly undermined. This, of course, is legislation that has already been put in place in my home province of British Columbia. I am very proud that we have a progressive provincial government that has seen the value of banning replacement workers. The reality is that the sky has not fallen. The legislation has been in place for some time, and we have seen collective bargaining proceed. We have seen workers manage to negotiate in good faith with their employers and secure benefits they so rightly deserve. I had a chance to attend the press conference right in the foyer of the House of Commons on the day that the bill was tabled in the House. Standing there listening to labour leaders who have been working on this for decades, hearing them say that it is legislation that working people have been trying to secure for almost as long as Canada has existed, was an emotional moment. It really underlined the historic significance of the bill that is before us. I will end by recognizing the hard work of my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who worked hard with the Minister of Labour to hammer out the bill we have before us. We want to see it brought into force as quickly as possible, and I sincerely hope that it passes through this place unanimously.

873 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Feb/26/24 3:54:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member on one point. In 2021, the Liberal election platform did specifically mention that we would bring in legislation to prohibit replacement workers. The mandate letter issued to the Minister of Labour in December 2021 also included this specific thing. I am glad that British Columbia and Quebec have similar legislation in place. Does the member agree with me that it is time for all provinces to bring in similar legislation to protect the interests of workers?

86 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Feb/26/24 3:55:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the member's second point, I very much agree that every province should bring in similar bans on the use of replacement workers for provincially regulated workplaces. British Columbia and Quebec have led the way, and it is time for other provinces to follow suit. On his first point, I am always open to being corrected, but usually more when I am wrong. The point I was making was that his party has voted against anti-scab legislation again and again. He mentioned the Liberal platform, and I recognize that there was a commitment in the Liberals' platform. His party commits to a lot of things in its election platform; that does not always result in their moving those things forward when they form government. I will leave it at that. The key difference here is that the legislation before us would apply to both strikes and lockouts, while the election platform of the Liberal Party did not.

161 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/26/24 3:56:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is passionate about the legislation. He talked about how he was able to talk his coalition partners, the Liberals, into it, but I am interested to know why the Liberals did not include in the scope of the bill the federal PSAC workers. There were 120,000 of them who went on strike, and one would think that if the Liberals thought it was such a terrific idea, they would want to extend the bill to cover not replacing those workers. Does the member have any thoughts on that?

102 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Feb/26/24 3:56:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is a good question and a fair one, and it is a good question to pose to the party across the way when they speak on this topic. It is absolutely something we support. When we drag the governing party, kicking and screaming, to see the value of the legislation we have been fighting for, for decades and decades, that is a negotiation. When the negotiation does not go as far as we would like it to go, we are still going to secure wins for working people. The question of why it does not go as far as it should really rests with the folks across the way.

114 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/26/24 3:57:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, civilian employees of the armed forces are currently locked out and scab workers are replacing them. The government does not seem to be acting, despite the bill that is on the table. Port of Québec workers have also been locked out for many months. It will soon be two years, if that is not already the case. However, the bill does not include people who are currently locked out or on strike. Does my colleague agree that this is a loophole that needs to be addressed as soon as possible?

98 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Feb/26/24 3:58:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc raises an important point, which is that this legislation, which is still being debated and still has to make its way through the other place, does nothing for workers who are, right now, facing conditions that could be alleviated by it. I think that underlines the importance of passing this bill through this place as quickly as possible. Rather than waiting 18 months after the time it is brought into force for its terms to take effect, we must ensure that workers are protected by its provisions as soon as possible, as quickly as possible. That is something I believe we share as a priority, and I hope it is something that we can see strengthened in the legislation before us.

128 words

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

Feb/26/24 3:59:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, given the history of trade unions in this country, can the member make the case, quickly, for how passing Bill C-58 is good for economic stability in Canada?

31 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Feb/26/24 3:59:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question from my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands was about economic stability. The fact is that in provinces without replacement worker legislation, work stoppages have been longer than they have been in provinces that have legislation like this in place. Bargaining in good faith with unionized employees who have the protection of legislation like this would create stability. That is what the evidence suggests. When workers do better, everyone in our country does better. That is what stability looks like.

84 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/26/24 4:00:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak. Today, we are speaking to Bill C-58, which is the legislation that would ban replacement workers. I have some relevant experience on all sides of this issue, being the daughter of someone whose mother was a teacher who went on strike and whose father was a member of the Canadian Auto Workers union who went on strike. My daughter is a nurse. My other daughter is a teacher. I was married to a union welder, a proud member of local 663 and one of the 5,000 union members in Sarnia—Lambton. We are well known worldwide for our high-quality and high-safety performance, and it is certainly considered to be a union town. At the same time, I worked for many years with Dow Chemical. In the late 1980s, there was a strike, and I was a scab in the strike. I did security and lab testing and had to cross the picket line. I had the experience of how things can escalate during those strike experiences. I bring all of that to my speech today. I will start out by saying that I am very surprised to see the Liberal government come forward with this legislation. I think about how the Liberals handle their own business. They have increased the use of contractors and consultants by over 60%; it is in the billions of dollars. Is that not really replacement workers from the PSAC union workers who do the work? I think about the arrive scam situation. There is a whole IT department in the government that is full of federal union-sector employees, yet the government decided to get two guys in a basement from GC Strategies and give them $20 million so that they could outsource from other replacement workers. I think the ArriveCAN is to the tune of north of $60 million in costs, but the two guys in the basement, who did no work on it, got $20 million. Certainly, there are lots of people who can outsource and procure within the government; again, are they not replacement workers? Further, I would note that the government has failed to include federal-sector employees as part of the scope of this legislation. There were 120,000 PSAC workers who went on strike. Therefore, if the government thinks this is a terrific idea, in conjunction with its NDP coalition partners, should it not have said that, if it is great for everybody else, we should put that in place here? Those are just some of the considerations that went through my mind when I started to think about what we needed to do here. The other example that I would talk about would be the government's taking $40 billion of taxpayer money to put into the Stellantis plant and the battery plant in St. Thomas to create 3,000 jobs and then turning around and, as we found out in the contract, saying there are going to be 1,600 Korean replacement workers. Again, the hypocrisy of the government in the way it acts versus the way it brings this legislation forward makes me really ask the question of whether the government really does support this concept or just has to do something to pacify its NDP marriage partners. One of the things that are missing in terms of what is in the legislation is something to do with essential workers. We have had a lot of strikes in Canada. There were 147 work stoppages in 2023 alone. It is to the point that we get rail strikes, port strikes and all these different strikes, and our partners in the U.S. are starting to consider that Canada is not a reliable supply chain. Therefore, something needs to be done to address that. I am fully behind the right to collective bargaining. I am fully behind people having the ability to negotiate fairly, but what is happening is that people are not negotiating, and then, all of a sudden, at the eleventh hour, the impact is felt by everyone. It is felt by CN Rail, where strikes happened. It is thousands and thousands of dollars to businesses. It is inconvenience to travellers, in many cases. We have all seen empty shelves as a result of port strikes. The United States has legislation for essential workers. The way it works is it defines what is considered an essential service or an essential worker, including essential infrastructure for the supply chain and nurses and medical professionals. What the Americans put in place is this. They have, say, four years between every negotiation. One month before they would go into a strike action place, they have to go to binding arbitration. That causes people to get more serious about negotiating early on and not waiting until the eleventh hour. Think of the parents who every year are threatened with strikes by teachers. All of a sudden there is no child care. It is fine to say we have $10-a-day child care, but if the spaces do not exist, that does not help them, and if the kids cannot go to school, that does not help them either. There are huge impacts that we are missing, and I would have liked to see something in this legislation to address them in a similar way to how they are addressed in the U.S. The second thing I would say is that there are a couple of technical things I do not think have been well considered. I have worked at chemical and petrochemical facilities and with nuclear and the mining sector. These facilities cannot be shut down on a dime. When it comes to the strike date and time to shut them down, it is not safe to do that. The language in the bill talks about how the only time replacement workers could be used in the case of a strike would be if a specific harm was identified that would occur. The problem with chemical plants, nuclear facilities and whatnot when there is a strike is that we do not know exactly what is going to leak, catch fire, impact the environment or whatever. Something will go wrong; we just do not know specifically what that is, so it would be impossible, then, with the current phraseology, to justify any replacement workers. I think that is something that will definitely need to be addressed. I would say, as an improvement to the bill, that there are ways of carving out the manufacturing and transfer of substances that are covered under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. That would really take care of this whole area where what it is going to go wrong or what the impacts would be cannot be defined exactly. If exemptions could exist if there was a harm related to the manufacture or transfer of substances covered under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, that might be a reasonable amendment to see. Hopefully, when this bill gets looked at, people will weigh the balance of things and try to come to a place where we are protecting workers' right to collective bargaining, but I think we need to make sure that we are protecting society and the public from undue harm. The supply chain issue is a real and present danger, with the number of disruptions that we have had. We already lack capacity at our ports. We are lacking rail connectivity in this country. It is not getting better; it is getting worse. With all of those kinds of disruptions, we need to find a way to incorporate “essential worker” and “essential service” as part of this legislation. Hopefully, at the end of the day, what we would find is that people are bargaining in good faith and bargaining faster. If they do not bargain in good faith, then before they are in a strike position it goes to binding arbitration, which will come to a resolution that maybe neither party will be satisfied with but at least will not have an impact on families, Canadians, businesses and our export partners. I look forward to the debate and listening to the ideas my colleagues have. I am from a union family. I support union workers. I support the rights of people to collectively bargain. I have been on the other side and can say that it is no fun crossing a picket line. With that, I look forward to the comments and questions from my colleagues.

1437 words

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

Feb/26/24 4:09:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been many years that I have had discussions on issues like anti-scab legislation and final offer selection. I can go back to the very hot debate topics in 1989-90 inside the Manitoba legislature, and I like to think that I have been a strong advocate for anti-scab legislation. I appreciate a number of the comments the member made. I often look at British Columbia or Quebec and to what degree public servants are incorporated into the legislation. I do not necessarily know the details. I think it is a legitimate question. I would like to see it maybe addressed in more detail as it goes to committee. The question I have for the member is this. Does the Conservative Party support passing this legislation to go to committee?

135 words