SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 317 - May/24/24

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/24/24 12:14:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today to present petition e-4919, which was initiated by Chris Tucker, the president of Port Renfrew's Chamber of Commerce in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. The petitioners want the government to recognize that closing the recreational fishery endangers Port Renfrew's economy, threatening over 100 small business owners' livelihoods; that no supporting data for the efficacy of static closures has been provided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, while many communities' economies face severe impacts; that critical threats to the southern resident killer whales, such as pollution and large shipping vessel traffic, remain under-addressed compared with the focus on recreational fishing; and that Port Renfrew's significant economic contribution, backed by a community and the Pacheedaht First Nation, underscores the need for sensible conservation efforts. They are advocating for a shift from arbitrary, punitive regulations to informed, evidence-based policies that ensure southern resident killer whale protection without compromising small communities' economic stability and future planning. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to adopt science-based regulations that recognize the marginal impact of the recreational fishery on the southern resident killer whales, do not require closures to recreational fishing and support a conservation-minded approach. What they want is thriving orcas, thriving oceans and thriving communities for many generations to come. I am proud to support the good people of Port Renfrew.

243 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

May/24/24 12:15:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present three petitions today on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country and the region. I will be very brief. The first petition is calling on the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship of Canada to make available a specialized permanent residency pathway for Ukrainians currently in Canada under the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel provisions. This pathway would not require them to have a Canadian citizen or permanent resident family member in Canada.

86 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

May/24/24 12:16:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is calling on the Government of Canada to fulfill promises it made to the Government of Ukraine and the armed forces of Ukraine to supply 155-millimetre shells and national advanced surface-to-air missile systems.

41 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

May/24/24 12:16:32 p.m.
Watch

The third petition is calling on the Minister of Defence to donate 83,000 discontinued surplus CRV7 rockets to the armed forces of Ukraine for the use of Ukraine's military defence against Russia's aggressive and illegal war.

39 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

May/24/24 12:16:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 38th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River are upset that jail is a revolving door for repeat offenders, as Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day. The Manitoba West district RCMP reported that just 15 individuals were responsible for 1,184 calls for service. The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

143 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

May/24/24 12:17:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present yet another petition in regard to the relationship between Canada and India, and how the communities here in Canada are hoping to see more direct flights going from Canada to India. There is a special emphasis, because constituents of mine are talking about it, on flights from Winnipeg directly to India or somewhere in Europe as a secondary thing. I hope that parliamentarians or the industry as a whole is made more aware of that demand.

87 words

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

May/24/24 12:18:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2503, 2506 and 2508.

14 words

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

May/24/24 12:19:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Question No. 2364, originally tabled on April 10, and the government's response to Questions Nos. 2502, 2504, 2505 and 2507 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately in an electronic format.

45 words

May/24/24 12:19:09 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2503—

Questioner: Michael Barrett

With regard to the social media post by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) on March 29, 2024, about a "March holiday season": (a) who wrote the post; (b) what is the process for approving VAC tweets, including which official in the minister's office reviewed the content before being posted and was the process followed in this case; (c) who decided to replace the term "Easter weekend" with "March holiday season"; (d) will VAC be adjusting its March holiday season greeting in years where Easter falls in April; and (e) has any VAC employee faced any disciplinary action as a result of the fallout from this post, and, if so, what measures were taken?

Question No. 2506—

Questioner: Dean Allison

With regard to Health Canada's MedEffect website: (a) is the process outlined in the guide entitled "Adverse Reaction Reporting and Health Product Safety Information: Guide for Health Professionals", the protocol that healthcare providers have to follow since December 1, 2020, to report COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, (i) when did the process change, (ii) which official in what department initiated the process change, (iii) what was the reason for the change; (c) since December 2020, what has been the new reporting protocol guidance to report COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions; (d) how were health professionals informed of the change in (c); and (e) what were the substantive differences from the protocol for reporting a vaccine adverse reaction prior to December 2020 and the new protocol outlined in (c)?

Question No. 2508—

Questioner: Scot Davidson

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency: as of April 8, 2024, how many T3 filing forms were completed by bare trusts, and how many taxpayers have filed T3 forms relating to bare trusts?

1287 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/24/24 12:19:09 p.m.
Watch

Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for return and that they be tabled immediately? Some hon. members: Agreed.

26 words

May/24/24 12:19:19 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2364—

Questioner: Gord Johns

With regard to contracts awarded since the 2009-10 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young, (vii) GC Strategies, (viii) Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., (ix) Dalian Enterprises Inc., (x) Coradix Technology Consulting Ltd, (xi) Dalian and Coradix in joint venture?

Question No. 2502—

Questioner: Garnett Genuis

With regard to the government’s approach to the visit of Nishan Duraiappah, Chief of Peel Regional Police, to Sri Lanka: (a) did the Government of Canada or any Canadian public entity assist in the visit, and, if so, who assisted and what form of assistance was provided; (b) did any Canadian government representative attend any meetings along with Chief Duraiappah, and, if so, what departments or agencies were in attendance; and (c) does the Government of Canada support or facilitate police exchanges or police cooperation between forces in Canada and Sri Lanka?

Question No. 2504—

Questioner: Sameer Zuberi

With regard to the Canada Disability Benefit Act and the reference to regulations to be made under the Act in section 11: (a) will the regulatory framework be in place by June 2024, as stipulated under the Act; (b) how much progress has been made on the regulatory framework to date; (c) when does the government anticipate that benefits will start being paid out to eligible persons with disabilities; (d) what will be the eligibility criteria to qualify for the benefit; (e) what will the dollar amount of the benefit be to the average Canadian with a disability; (f) what metrics and standards will be used to determine the benefit amount; (g) what is the anticipated financial cost of the program; (h) how will the government determine whether the benefit has achieved the Act's stated goal of lifting Canadians with disabilities out of 'poverty'; (i) will the government implement one of the three scenarios laid out in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's November 2023 report entitled "The Canada Disability Benefit: Model and Scenarios", and, if so, which one; and (j) which stakeholders and interest groups are being consulted during the regulatory process?

Question No. 2505—

Questioner: John Brassard

With regard to Old Age Security (OAS): (a) how many OAS payment recipients were not residents of Canada for tax purposes in the 2023 tax year; (b) what was the total amount paid out in OAS payments to the recipients in (a); and (c) for OAS program recipients outside of Canada, what is the breakdown by country of the aggregate number of recipients, and the total amount paid for each of the tax years 2022 and 2023?

Question No. 2507—

Questioner: Gerald Soroka

With regard to the government's carbon tax rebates owed to businesses since the implementation of the federal carbon pricing program in 2019: (a) what is the total amount still owed by the federal government in carbon tax rebates to businesses, broken down by (i) small businesses, (ii) medium-sized businesses; (b) what are the specific amounts owed to businesses in each province and territory, broken down by (i) small businesses, (ii) medium-sized businesses; (c) what measures is the government taking to ensure that outstanding carbon tax rebates are processed and delivered to businesses in a timely manner; and (d) how many businesses, broken down by size (i.e., small, medium) and by province and territory, have not yet received their carbon tax rebates?

564 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/24/24 12:19:22 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/24/24 12:19:22 p.m.
Watch

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

16 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

May/24/24 12:19:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order regarding the government's response to my written Question No. 2485, which was published on the Order Paper on March 20, 2024. In my written question, I asked the government about its consultation process for Parks Canada’s detailed impact assessment of the “Management of Zebra Mussels in Clear Lake in Riding Mountain National Park”, which was opened for public comment in February 2024. I asked the government, “Who did Parks Canada directly inform of the Detailed Impact Assessment, and when were each of them notified...?” The government stated, “Parks Canada informed the following groups of the opportunity to publicly comment on the detailed impact assessment”. Included on the list of organizations that Parks Canada claimed to notify was my office, the Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce and Clear Lake Country, a local tourism association. This was a concerning response given that neither my office nor I were informed that Parks Canada had initially launched an opportunity to publicly comment on the detailed impact assessment. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that neither the Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce nor Clear Lake Country were initially informed of the opportunity to publicly comment on the detailed impact assessment for Clear Lake within Riding Mountain National Park, despite being identified as key stakeholders by Parks Canada. In the response, the government claimed that Dameon Wall, external relations manager for the Riding Mountain Field Unit, informed these stakeholders of the initial public comment period on behalf of Parks Canada. However, no records of this exist. This directly contradicts the government's response and indicates that the government provided false information to Parliament. I hope the government will review this response and correct the record at the earliest opportunity.

301 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/24/24 12:21:33 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for that point of order. That was the topic of a question of privilege that was brought forward in this chamber not so long ago. At the time, we suggested that the House should decide on either sending this for review or something else. That is a decision that the House is going to have to make, but we will look at it a little closer to see if we can come back with something more concrete.

84 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

May/24/24 12:22:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58 Bill C-276

Mr. Speaker, in 1977, under René Lévesque's Parti Québécois government, the Quebec Labour Code banned the use of replacement workers. The Quebec labour minister at the time, Pierre Marc Johnson, said the following when the legislation was introduced, and I quote: “The purpose of this measure is not to automatically close factories during a lockout or legal strike, but rather to restore a healthy balance between the parties and eliminate practices that cause tension and violence during labour disputes.... Workers, not companies, are the first to suffer as a result of a work stoppage, and letting the employer carry on as though nothing is wrong during a lockout or legal strike creates a fundamental imbalance between the parties.” This was a major step forward for workers' rights in Quebec and a defining moment in the history of the labour movement and its struggle. Today, 46 years later, Bill C-58 seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to ban replacement workers. Bravo, or should I say, “it is about time”? It is certainly a step forward for the rights of federally regulated workers, but above all, it is making up for lost time. The fate of thousands of workers and their right to bargain and to strike has been, continues to be and will continue to be undermined by this inexcusable delay, at least until the bill comes into force 12 months after receiving royal assent. The effects of this injustice are still being felt. Quebec workers live under two systems. Federally regulated workers in Quebec who are currently in a dispute are paying the price for this injustice. Think of the port of Quebec workers who have been locked out for nearly two years. The employer is using replacement workers. No one is talking about it. No one is working on fixing this because it is business as usual. This is unacceptable. Think of the Vidéotron employees in Gatineau, who are also locked out. In that telecommunications sector, thousands of jobs are being outsourced to call centres overseas. They too have been locked out for several months, and replacement workers are being used. At the port of Sorel‑Tracy, the United Steelworkers went on strike for 12 months, and scabs were brought in. I could continue to list all of the injustices and shameful practices that employers have engaged in with impunity because, to date, the Canada Labour Code has not been changed to remedy this injustice. Unions have been calling for anti-scab legislation as part of the Canada Labour Code for a long time, and so has the Bloc Québécois. Over the past 33 years, there have been 11 bills, the very first of which was tabled in 1990 by the dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Time after time, the Liberals and the Conservatives have blocked the Bloc Québécois's bills. I myself introduced Bill C-276 in this Parliament in May 2022. The fight was waged by unions and the Bloc Québécois, with constant prodding and the strength of our convictions. The NDP will take credit for that. It was certainly part of that struggle too and, indeed, we commend its work, just as we commend that of the Department of Labour and the leadership the minister has shown. However, there is a “but”, and it is a big “but”. Unfortunately, we have to wonder, given the way the bill has been crafted, with the proposed implementation deadline, for one, whether there is any real intention for this bill to actually see the light of day or whether it is just window dressing, meant to look good. Everyone knows as well as I do that there is a clear difference between fact and appearance, just as there is a difference between declared values and practised values. From the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has condemned the fact that the initial bill provided for an 18-month coming-into-force period following royal assent. Given this time frame and the fact that we have a minority government, it is no wonder that we are questioning the intent. We proposed an amendment in committee to repeal this delay, proposing that the bill come into force as soon as it receives royal assent. This amendment was rejected by all parties, because the NDP and the Liberals had agreed in advance to propose a 12-month delay. However, the vast majority of the unions we heard from said that there was no explanation for the delay and they too wanted the bill to take effect right after royal assent. That is what it means to protect workers, and the Bloc Québécois stepped up. When we began studying the bill, we announced that we also wanted to improve it in committee and move fast to close the loophole to ensure that the nonsense of using scabs is banned for good. We proposed carefully chosen amendments put forward by the unions. Among other things, these amendments aimed to include federal public service employees and thus correct a major omission. The government, as an employer, has excluded its own employees from the scope of the bill. We proposed a relevant amendment, but it was ruled out of order because it would amend another act. In principle, however, it is very unfortunate that the bill does not apply to federal government employees. This error needs to be corrected and I hope it will be corrected. We also made amendments to amend or repeal sections that allow exceptions to the prohibition rule. It may seem complicated. Strikebreakers are prohibited, but there are exceptions. Among the exceptions, I would particularly mention employees covered prior to the bargaining notice. The employer is permitted to use these employees as replacements for striking employees in the event of a dispute, lockout or strike. It would even be possible for an employee in a bargaining unit of the same employer—but in a different local—to be called upon to replace workers or colleagues during a strike or lockout. This makes no sense whatsoever. The unions have rightly denounced this. If the law is supposed to be consistent, how can certain categories of workers, such as subcontractors and independent contractors, be excluded from this restriction? That sort of thing is prohibited under Quebec's law. We also proposed an amendment to provide for an investigation mechanism that exists under the Quebec code. If the government wants to impose sanctions, if it wants to be tougher, it has to give the Canada Industrial Relations Board the means to do its job and investigate if the employer breaks the law. Employees cannot do that. Employees who are on strike or locked out cannot enter the factory or their employer's premises. An investigator would have to be called in. This amendment was also rejected. We had also proposed an amendment to reduce the time limits for the Canada Industrial Relations Board orders so as not to unduly interfere with the strike. All these amendments were rejected. We are disappointed that these proposed improvements were rejected. They are essential for ensuring the consistency of the bill's objective of fully recognizing the fundamental right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike. However, we can be proud that we put them forward, stood by our convictions, and listened to and supported union demands in the fight for workers' rights. If the past is any indication, an opportunity to reform the legislation is unlikely to come around again any time soon. This supposedly historic bill deserved more care and attention to achieve its objectives. I hope that history will vindicate the struggle of workers and finally rectify the injustice they have laboured under for so many years.

1339 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/24/24 12:33:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members have long held a similar position to ours on support for workers. I thank them for supporting workers. Can the member tell us about the impact that this bill will have on people?

37 words

Ms. Louise Chabot

May/24/24 12:34:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the member must know, a minimally effective bill would at the very least ensure that federally regulated workers have the right to free bargaining and the right to strike. This bill also seeks to prohibit the use of scabs and will help maintain industrial peace during negotiations. It should also help shorten the length of disputes. That is significant, considering what is happening at the port of Quebec, where federally regulated Quebec workers have been locked out by their employer for two years now. No one cares because the employer is using scabs, which is allowed. This will make a major change. It is important to always keep in mind that the right to strike and the right to free bargaining are fundamental charter rights. The Liberals should normally support those rights and enforce them. This will change everything, but it could have changed everything sooner.

149 words

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

May/24/24 12:35:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the legislation and its potential impact, and we can talk about those things that fall within the federal responsibility, I like to think that its passage would send a very powerful message. The province of Quebec, which the member made reference to, has had anti-scab legislation for many years now, as does the province of British Columbia. The national government is now bringing forward the proposed legislation and getting the support of all political entities inside the chamber, it would appear; ultimately, this could influence other provincial legislatures to do likewise and bring in anti-scab legislation. Could the member provide her thoughts on that issue?

113 words

Ms. Louise Chabot

May/24/24 12:36:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, every province has its own jurisdictions. Every province decides on the social progress it wants to make with respect to labour law. In Quebec, that is it. After 46 years, the federal government is now saying it is pleased with what is happening. It would have been even better if the government had the courage to include federal public servants in the bill. It would have been even better if the bill had come into force as soon as it received royal assent to eliminate the possibility of any further use of replacement workers. There is still some work to be done here.

105 words