44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 26, 2024 11:00AM
- Feb/26/24 4:57:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot profess to know the particulars the member opposite is referring to, but I think it is a good-faith question, and I appreciate that from her. I always appreciated the member's work on the procedure and House affairs committee when we served on it together. I would be happy to look into the matter. I cannot say that I know enough about the details, and I would need to clarify some of them before I could undertake to answer the question. I do not want to give her an answer that is just for the sake of it; I would rather give a legitimate response.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:57:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question has to do with the government's departments. It has a whole IT department. It has a whole procurement department that outsources and that looks for help if it needs it. Therefore, with respect to the ArriveCAN app, I want to know why the government decided to outsource the procurement of IT when it has a whole IT department and a whole procurement department.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:58:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I see the relevance to the particular bill we are focused on, but perhaps I can speak to one of the questions that has come up: Why does this not include the public sector? I think the reason is that this is a particular set of amendments to the Labour Code, which is not the Public Service Act; it is another act. My understanding is that the public sector unions have agreements with the federal government to ensure that during any labour disputes, essential services are able to be provided and that Canadians do not see any interruption in those essential services. My understanding is that public sector unions do not use replacement workers.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:59:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a rather direct question for my colleague.
Does the 18-month delay his government included in the legislation not bother him?
That is more time than this government has left, those 18 months before implementation. We are all aware that there could be a change in government before the legislation takes effect. However, this is a fundamental law. We are talking about defending the rights of workers. In Quebec, we have been doing that since 1977. Canada is already way behind.
Could this not be done more quickly? I would like the member to explain to me why there is a delay.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:59:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish my French were good enough for me to respond in French.
The 18-month timeline of coming into force is something that was debated, that we did work on and that we felt unions and labour organizations, as well as employers, needed as the runway to adapt, because this is would be a really significant change. It would be arguably one of the biggest changes in terms of collective bargaining in Canadian history. I would say that it merits a bit of a runway for organizations to adapt and get ready, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs time as well.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:00:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago I had a meeting with Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who expressed concerns over the legislation. I spoke to him about how we have developed the legislation. One of his concerns was the consultation process that was used.
Maybe the parliamentary secretary could highlight how the legislation was developed in concert with union and business.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate Perrin Beatty's interventions and sometimes his critiques of the work of our government. I find his comments very helpful.
Just to clarify, my understanding is that there were 57 stakeholder organizations that came together at five round tables, where labour organizations and unions sat down with major employers. The sectors that were represented were the telecommunications sector; air, marine and rail transportation sectors; and courier and postal services sectors. They, as well as all of the major unions, all participated in the round tables. There were 71 written submissions, 45 personal stories, individual comments and then a “What We Heard” report, which was published.
All of the work of proper consultation was done in the lead-up to the tabling of Bill C-58. That is why the bill is so significant.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber as I rise today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.
This bill would, of course, amend Part I of the Canada Labour Code and the industrial board regulations to prohibit the use of replacement workers, and improve the process of protecting against the immediate and serious danger to public health and safety during a legal strike or lockout. More specifically, the bill would prohibit employers from using new hires or contractors to replace striking workers. In addition, they also could not use members of the very same bargaining unit that was on strike or in a lockout position.
There are two exceptions provided for in the bill. First, employers would be able to use those replacement workers in the strike or lockdown if it was necessary to protect life, health or safety; protect against destruction or damage to the employer's property or premises; or to protect against serious environmental damage affecting those premises. Second, employers could use employees within the bargaining unit to prevent that same list of circumstances that I just outlined.
When I commute to Ottawa, I fly in to and out of Windsor. My flight path almost always takes me, depending on which way the wind blows, over the new battery plant being built in Windsor, the Stellantis plant. In fact, on Friday, a few days ago, I toured one of the buildings of this new plant with the leader of the official opposition and my friend, the member for Essex. This building was being erected by a local third-generation, family-owned construction company, Rosati, with a strong, unionized, industrious local workforce.
I find it a bit ironic that we are debating this legislation today, Bill C-58, when the government committed $15 billion of Canadian taxpayer funds for a battery plant that is hiring foreign replacement workers. We can make the argument that this is not the very same worker. The point is, this is $15 billion of taxpayer funds. That is going to cost every family in Canada $1,000, while leaving our union workers out in the cold. We can debate the semantics of whether that is a replacement worker or not.
I also find it ironic that this legislation would not ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, but this legislation is not being extended to the public sector unions. In those situations, the federal government is a party to the negotiation process. Is that not a bit curious?
Last November, we also learned that the Liberals are allowing companies like NextStar and Northvolt to bring in hundreds of foreign workers to help build electric vehicles in Windsor and Quebec. Not surprisingly, the government has received major pushback from our unions on this. Sean Strickland, the executive director from Canada's Building Trades Unions, has called the situation unconscionable. He said that bringing in 900 foreign workers is well beyond the standards his organization has ever seen.
Conservatives will always stand up for Canadian workers. In fact, we tabled a motion in November at the House's government operations committee to compel the government to be transparent with Canadians once and for all, and publish the contracts for the two battery plant deals, as well as the three others that have received a promise of federal subsidies. Of course, Liberal members on the committee objected.
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle compared this situation to shareholders demanding to hold a company's CEO accountable. By shareholders here, of course we mean the Canadian taxpayers. By the company's CEO, we mean the Prime Minister of Canada. He said, “foreign replacement workers coming to Canada, thanks to taxpayer subsidies, is of interest not just to the workers in the area but to every single Canadian family whose tax bill is underwriting this.”
A further example of taxpayers underwriting government overspending is, of course, the arrive scam app. It gave a $20-million contract to GC Strategies, a two-person IT firm, though it might be four people but that does not really matter, which does no actual IT work. The government cannot confirm how much the company has received. We have learned that GC Strategies has received a quarter of a billion dollars in consulting contracts since 2015.
Why did the Prime Minister not go out and hire another 600 border guards to address the car theft we are experiencing, or the import of handguns or drugs from across the border? That would have been $60 billion far better spent. It has never been more clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
I am a Conservative, so I believe that the market mechanism is the most efficient means by which to transfer the value of goods and services. Services include things like the labour that is required in almost every sector of our economy. However, markets only function best and are sustainable over time when there is a balance of power across the negotiating table where these goods and services are being established. Too much power on one side or the other distorts the process, leads to unfair outcomes and is not sustainable over time. Collective bargaining is one such structure that has developed over time to bring some balance to the negotiating table. It is obviously used in many sectors of our economy.
Prior to being elected, I served and participated in a form of such bargaining on behalf of processing vegetable producers in annual negotiations with processors to establish pre-plant contracts for the terms and conditions of sale for a particular vegetable crop each and every season. Do members know what? We did not always agree. Then, a strike or a lockout really was not an option for either the processors or the growers as it is Mother Nature who dictates, through the seasonality of our Canadian climate, when the crops need to be planted and harvested. The certainty of a pre-plant contract was vital for both processors and producers so that they were assured of a supply for the processors and of the opportunity of a fair return for the producers. Therefore, an alternate form of dispute resolution needed to be found in the event of contract negotiations not being agreed upon by the pre-approved deadline.
For many years, the industry used the final offer selection arbitration process as this dispute settling mechanism and, as unpleasant as any arbitration ever is, the system worked and worked well for many years for several reasons. The first is that it was fair.
Second,it worked well because it drove good negotiations, which I believe is the goal of all processes to establish fair values, be it for a tomato crop or for an hourly wage. In the event that two parties to a contract talk could not agree by a specified predetermined time, they flipped final offers. At that time, both parties submitted their final offer to an arbitrator or to a panel of arbitrators of all the outstanding disputed items in the contract. Some time after a period of conciliation or mediation, an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators had to pick, and here is the key, one party's position in its entirety. They could not “split the baby in half”.
Herein lies the beauty of the system. If either party submitted an unreasonable or indefensible position, even on one particular aspect of the contract, it risked the arbitrator picking the other party's position. Therefore, in effect, the final offer selection process drives good negotiations to settle at the table where the best agreements are always made, rather than risk an arbitration process.
Let me be clear. Canadian workers have the right to collectively bargain and to determine fair value for their work, and it is inevitable that not all such bargaining situations will end in an immediate agreement. Bill C-58 sets out one option in the event that a strike situation occurs. Of course, unions will argue that the option for replacement workers tips the balance of power too much toward the employers, while employers will state that the lack of such an option will lengthen strikes and jeopardize so much of the critical facets of our economy, thus hurting the Canadian public.
In another setting, I have personally experienced a different option: final offer arbitration. That has worked to settle disputes and has allowed crops to be planted and harvested on time without disrupting or losing a season. Improved labour relations should be the goal of any and every government, and having good labour relations is ultimately what is best for our country, for our workers and for our employers.
I look forward to the continuation of the debate to see if Bill C-58 is the right tool in the right circumstances. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.
1516 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:11:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with final offer selection. It was a topic of great debate from about 1988-91 in the Manitoba legislature. We had a sunset clause on final offer selection legislation. It was ultimately a compromise by the then NDP premier Howard Pawley that, as opposed to bringing in anti-scab legislation, we had final offer selection. It is an interesting story, but I do not have enough time to talk about it.
I am very much interested in the member's position on this legislation. Does he support the legislation going to committee?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:12:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I enjoy about this place is that we have the opportunity to debate. I have listened to speeches today and actually gone back to previous days and read through other speeches, and I am still learning about the nuances of the particular sector. As I explained, I have had experience in an agriculture setting, where deadlines were imposed by a force that growers and processors both acknowledged, so there was a process developed to address that.
On final offer arbitration, I am glad the member opposite is so familiar with it. I have the opportunity to meet with many groups, and not just from agriculture, as they come into my office. I have talked with labour unions and all sorts. What I am exploring here and listening for throughout the debate is something that no one has yet told me, which is how the final offer arbitration process is an unfair process to either the labour side or the employer side. That is the beauty of it, that it actually drives a good negotiation. Arbitration is always unpleasant, as are strikes and lockouts.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:13:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I share the parliamentary secretary's curiosity with regard to the Conservative Party's position on this legislation. Its members are still studying it at this late hour, and I guess it is going to be somewhat of a surprise, maybe a good surprise and maybe a bad surprise, when it comes to a vote.
My question is whether he has consulted with labour unions in his constituency on the topic of this bill, and if so, what message did they bring to him with regard to banning replacement workers in strikes and lockouts?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:14:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer, short and simple, is yes. I have had locals and different unions in my office and asked them that very question. I explained the arbitration process to them; some were familiar with it and some were not. I have asked them the question of whether that would work in their situation.
In full transparency, the arbitration process was actually removed from the industry I spent 20 years in, and not at the behest of the growers. It was actually removed at the behest of the processors. In this situation, they would be in the employer role, whereas I collectively bargained on behalf of producers.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:15:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my question for my Conservative colleague is very simple, and it has to do with this anti-scab legislation. It seems that the Conservatives are against this bill. Once the Senate has passed this bill, it will take 18 months for it to come into force.
Can the member confirm that, if the Conservatives take power, they will tear up this legislation?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:15:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot answer that question, because where I am right now is in listening mode. I have two ears and one mouth. I exercised the mouth for a full 10 minutes and am now using my two ears to try to listen and understand the various positions. The question is speculative as to what might happen in the future, but I am still listening to the debate and will determine exactly what my response will be to the question when it is put before us.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:16:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to give my colleague the opportunity to elaborate on anything he did not get the chance to say in his speech.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:16:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could go into my stump speech about how resolution mechanisms are different in different situations. I am very familiar with that in the ag situation, where different marketing mechanisms are used in different sectors based upon four factors. I will not get into all of them, but one set of circumstances does not lead itself to the same outcome when it comes to dispute resolution.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am rising this afternoon on a question of privilege concerning the leak of key details of Bill C-63, the so-called online harms bill, which was tabled in the House earlier today.
While a lot will be said in the days, weeks and months ahead about the bill in the House, its parliamentary journey is not off to a good start. Yesterday afternoon, the CBC published on its website an article entitled “Ottawa to create regulator to hold online platforms accountable for harmful content: sources”. The article, written by Naama Weingarten and Travis Dhanraj, outlined several aspects of the bill with the information attributed to two sources “with knowledge of Monday's legislation”.
I will read brief excerpts of the CBC's report revealing details of the bill before it was tabled in Parliament.
“The Online Harms Act, expected to be introduced by the federal government on Monday, will include the creation of a new regulator that would hold online platforms accountable for harmful content they host, CBC News has confirmed.”
“The new regulatory body is expected to oversee a digital safety office with the mandate of reducing online harm and will be separate from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), sources say.”
“Sources say some components of the new bill will be modelled on the European Union's Digital Services Act. According to the European Commission, its act “regulates online intermediaries and platforms such as marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms.””
Then, today, CTV News published a second report entitled “Justice Minister to Introduce New Bill to Tackle Harmful Online Content”. In Rachel Aiello's article, she says, “According to a senior government source [Bill C-63] would be expected to put an emphasis on harms to youth including specific child protection obligations for social media and other online platforms, including enhanced preservation requirements. It targets seven types of online harms: hate speech, terrorist content, incitement to violence, the sharing of non-consensual intimate images, child exploitation, cyberbullying, and inciting self-harm, and includes measures to crack down on non-consensual artificial intelligence pornography, deepfakes and require takedown provisions for what's become known as 'revenge porn'. Further, while the sources suggested there will be no new powers for law enforcement, multiple reports have indicated the bill will propose creating a new digital safety ombudsperson to field Canadians' concerns about platform decisions around content moderation.”
As explained in footnote 125 on page 84 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on March 19, 2001: “Speaker Milliken ruled that the provision of information concerning legislation to the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House constituted a prima facie case of contempt.”
The subsequent report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concluded: “This case should serve as a warning that our House will insist on the full recognition of its constitutional function and historic privileges across the full spectrum of government.”
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the warning has had to be sounded multiple times since. Following rulings by your predecessors finding similar prima facie contempts on October 15, 2001, April 19, 2016 and March 10, 2020, not to mention several other close-call rulings that fell short of the necessary threshold yet saw the Chair sound cautionary notes for future reference, a number of those close-call rulings occurred under the present government that would often answer questions of privilege with claims that no one could be certain who had leaked the bill or even when it had been leaked, citing advanced policy consultations with stakeholders.
Mr. Speaker, your immediate predecessor explained, on March 10, 2020, on page 1,892 of the Debates, the balancing act that must be observed. He said:
The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one’s intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.
In the present circumstances, no such defence about stakeholders talking about their consultations can be offered. The two sources the CBC relied upon for its reporting were, according to the CBC itself, granted anonymity “because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter before the bill is tabled in Parliament.”
As for the CTV report, its senior government source “was not authorized to speak publicly about details yet to be made public.”
When similar comments were made by the Canadian Press in its report on the leak of the former Bill C-7 respecting medical assistance in dying, Mr. Speaker, your immediate predecessor had this to say when finding a prima facie contempt in his March 10, 2020 ruling:
Everything indicates that the act was deliberate. It is difficult to posit a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules in this case.
Just as in 2020, the leakers knew what they were doing. They knew it was wrong and they knew why it was wrong. The House must stand up for its rights, especially against a government that appears happy to trample over them in the pursuit of legislating the curtailing of Canadians' rights.
Mr. Speaker, if you agree with me that there is a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
963 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:23:07 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the opposition House leader, for raising this question of privilege. I will take it under advisement and come back to the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on the same point.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:23:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we would like to review the comments of the opposition House leader and also provide a viewpoint to the Speaker's Office at some point.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:23:39 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the members for their co-operation in that regard.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
