SoVote

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

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

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/24/24 12:37:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I think that my colleague is second to none in the House when it comes to labour law. Now, during the initial debates, many Bloc Québécois members asked the government why it imposed this 18-month delay after royal assent. We kept being told that the question needed to be asked in committee and that we would work on it in committee. What the committee managed to do was reduce the delay from 18 months to 12 months. Does my colleague know why, unlike all other bills that come into force immediately following royal assent, this one comes into force 12 months later? In committee, did the members have the chance to get insightful, if not intelligent, explanations for this delay?

136 words

Ms. Louise Chabot

May/24/24 12:38:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked me if we had gotten any intelligent explanations. I will not accuse anyone of being unintelligent, but I questioned the Minister of Labour and Seniors quite regularly, and we were told that the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs time to ensure that the law fully comes into force. I am not entirely satisfied with that answer, because one would think that between the bill drafting stage and royal assent, the government would be able to apply all the resources needed to start the work. I still have my doubts, because there is clearly a big difference between introducing a bill and hoping that it will pass.

111 words

Labour
Force

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

May/24/24 12:39:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Her speech was quite enlightening about this situation, meaning the lack of will to implement the bill and ensure that it can come into force in the short term. As I do not have much time, I will be brief. The Quebec government settled this issue in 1977, almost 50 years ago. That is half a century. The first time someone decided to try to update the federal code to match Quebec's was in 1989. That someone was my colleague Louis Plamondon, the dean of the House. I was still in diapers in 1989. Can my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville explain why we have been talking about this same issue for so long, why it has yet to be resolved and why there is still a chance that it will not get resolved?

149 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/24/24 12:40:42 p.m.
Watch

Before recognizing the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville, I would like to remind the member that he is not to refer to members of the House by their first or last name, but only by their position or the riding they represent. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

58 words

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

May/24/24 12:41:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that there are probably a number of reasons, but it takes political will. For both sides of the House, after this many years, the system is all right. They can live with it. In terms of labour law, there are no examples to cite here. Governments have introduced an increasing number of special laws that undermine workers' rights. There was no political will to change the rules of the game. Will this time be different? Will the rules change? Workers who are currently in a dispute, on strike or locked out under this system know full well that the legislation will not apply to them or resolve their dispute. They are already fighting for future workers. The legislation will only come into force 12 months after it receives royal assent. In the meantime, the federal government will continue to enforce the code, which does not prohibit the use of replacement workers.

157 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/24/24 12:42:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, could the member describe the other social benefits that workers, in particular unionized workers, have brought to our country, the province of Quebec, and so forth, through the advocacy of good, solid social programs?

36 words

Ms. Louise Chabot

May/24/24 12:42:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I hope he knows the answer. Since it began, the labour movement has not only advanced workers' rights but it has also helped society as a whole to progress, with greater social justice, greater equality and greater fairness. The unions did this not just for workers' rights but for all citizens. History shows that. In Quebec, these struggles were important. Progress was made during the Quiet Revolution, when the socio-political context was difficult and there were bitter disputes. The unions played a part in and contributed to the evolution of society and established—

105 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/24/24 12:43:42 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville. She has more than exceeded her time. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

33 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/24/24 12:43:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Burnaby South.

22 words

Burnaby

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/24/24 12:44:02 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie): The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

22 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/24/24 12:44:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today is a powerful day, a day that I never thought I would actually see in the House of Commons, after eight efforts over the years in my time to bring forward legislation to protect workers from anti-scab actions by employers to deny them their fundamental rights. We are here today to bring this into law. On my way here, I learned that, today, the International Court of Justice has called out Israel for the brutal genocide that is happening in Gaza and Rafah, calling on Israel to end this horrific campaign. This is a day of justice. I think of Martin Luther King Jr.'s beautiful statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” That slogan has been used many times over the years, but what people do not often reflect on is that the bending of that arc of justice is done in the face of immense opposition. It is done in the face of threat. It is done in the face of harassment. It is often done in the face of violence. However, the arc of the moral universe will move, inevitably, toward justice. I was thinking about that, because my mom called me last night. My mom is a hardrock miner's daughter. In fact, her father, Joe MacNeil, started in the Cape Breton coal mines, back when Dominion Steel used to use the army against the coal miners in New Waterford and Glace Bay. They had a classic tactic. They would make the men and the families sleep in tents in the winter to break them. They called them communists, radicals and extremists. There was nothing radical or extreme about fighting for a living wage. What was radical and extreme was the capitalists who would use the army, putting a machine gun in the church steeple in New Waterford to try to intimidate working people. However, in that moral universe, the arc bent relentlessly toward justice, because there is a moment when people just cannot put up with it anymore and will not put up with anymore. Mom called me last night and told me how inspired she was. These are dark times, but my mom always sees hope. She said to me that she was so inspired to see the young people marching out of those university commencements, university students in the United States who were putting their careers on the line, facing serious harassment, being called all kinds of hateful things by an establishment that wants to shut them down. My mom said that young people get it. They are not going to sit silent in the face of a genocide. Again, what bends toward justice is bending in the face of the harassment and the intimidation and the false threats that these young students are somehow extremists and radicals. There is nothing extreme about speaking up against the mass killing of children. What is extreme is going along with it, like last night. When the International Criminal Court has called for indictments against Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes, the government and its key ministers would be drinking wine and schnaps with Israeli leaders here in Ottawa. We can say that we are friends. We are. Canada has a long, deep friendship with Israel, but friends do not let friends commit war crimes. My mom said that she was so inspired by these young people who are standing up, walking out and marching in the streets. My mother said to me that she was going to get her walker and go down and walk with them. My mother has never been to a demonstration in her life, but she sees the mark of—

623 words