SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 285

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 26, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24
Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)
  • Feb/26/24 4:46:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, absolutely, anti-scab legislation is necessary and we need to get on board. The NDP has tried to move it forward eight times in the last 15 years, and finally the moment has arrived. One of the issues we have concerns with is that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. However, this is what we have. On the implementation date in the legislation, it is extremely long, at 18 months. Does the member think that needs to be shortened?
83 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24
Ms. Elizabeth May
  • Feb/26/24 4:47:06 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, to my friend from Vancouver East, absolutely, 18 months is too long. It makes no sense. Let us get that fixed in committee.
25 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24
Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)
  • 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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24
Mr. Chandra Arya
  • Feb/26/24 5:33:51 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that this is most important legislation when it comes to the labour workforce in our country. This would be a fundamental change to the way in which collective bargaining and negotiations would take place. Because this would be a major change, it would require time for all the parties involved to get adjusted to the new reality. This is a long time coming, and it would be around for a very long time, so the period of 18 months is required for all the players to get accustomed to the new reality and to make necessary adjustments in their approach in future negotiations.
110 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24
Mr. Chandra Arya
  • Feb/26/24 5:37:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has come to the House after many decades. I do not think that it makes a big difference to wait patiently for another 18 months, instead of putting it on the employers and the unions who are currently negotiating or are on the verge of starting their negotiations. Once everybody understands, it should not lead to any unintended consequences if it is suddenly brought into force. The 18 months is a good time for everyone involved to get adjusted to this new reality.
87 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24
Mr. Earl Dreeshen
  • Feb/26/24 5:50:20 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I said is it was a couple of years ago when it was first proposed and now we are finally seeing it come for discussion. The other question was whether we should have 18 months. There will be a different government in 18 months. It still comes back to: What have we heard? What we are looking at? Are there are any assurances that the restrictions on replacement workers are going to speed up negotiations? Those are the questions and what I believe everyone is talking about here today.
92 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border