Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2016

Canada Labour Code

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear the member from Sackville speak about the collective bargaining process.

A very important part of collective bargaining is the ability for employees to withdraw their labour. That right really only has effect if the employer cannot just bring in replacement workers.

Several times in previous Parliaments, anti-scab legislation has come forward. Often the Liberals have spoken very positively about it, but when it came down to actually voting for it on final reading, they would sort of fall away, would not show up, or vote against it, that sort of thing.

Now that the Liberals have the majority and could pass anti-scab legislation, I am wondering if the member from Sackville could commit to do so.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are focused on making the necessary changes that will allow for a strong relationship between unions and industry, the economy, so that we can ensure improvement and continued growth in this country.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question regarding consultation on Bill C-4.

The member talked about how none of the consultation happened before with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. However, we did extensive consultation. We had many union members and union leaders come in at committee and Senate stage to talk about this.

Does the member not understand that some of the polling we did with Leger and Nanos showed that more than 84% of union members were in support of the legislation we put forward.

Did the Liberals do any consultation with actual union members, or was it just with union leadership?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear the member across talk about consultation.

We all know there was very little, if any, consultation. The Conservatives tried to put the legislation through in a private member's bill.

We consulted with all Canadians from one part of the country to the other throughout the campaign. It was very clear. That is why we are the government today. We are the government today and we will bring change for Canadians, positive change that will allow unions, the Canadian government, and companies to work closely together to improve the economy of this country.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very good speech. During his speech he spoke about red tape duplication. What we mean by that is, the provinces already have legislation dealing with these matters in their jurisdiction. In fact, this legislation that was put in tries to duplicate things that are already under provincial jurisdiction.

Why would any government, including our own, want to proceed in this fashion when it is not constitutionally our jurisdiction and just adds another layer on something that does not need to be done as it is?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite obvious that for the past government, working with the provinces was a no-no. There was no discussion. Whenever the prime minister or any ministers arrived in any one of the provinces or regions, they did not even let the provincial government know they were in town. They had no consultation whatsoever and never allowed them to expose information of that nature.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Because of the vote, we have extended the sitting by 10 minutes.

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey will resume when the motion comes back for debate.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Intergovernmental Relations

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last December, I asked the government to withdraw from the court challenge aimed at striking down the provisions of Bill 99, legislation passed by the Quebec National Assembly. The response was a resounding “no”. Are we disappointed? Of course we are. Are we surprised? Not really.

Quebec's prerogatives are very rarely respected by this House, so we were not surprised to hear the government feed us the same old lines and say that being part of Canada is non-negotiable. However, I recall a speech given in the National Assembly by Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa sometime in 1990, in which he said, “What does Quebec want?”

This is not the first time Quebec has said what it wants. Quebec has also been very clear about what it does not want on many occasions. We clearly expressed what we wanted through Premier Bourassa. In response, Canada sent back a very clear message at the time, and that message remains the same today: “Canada does not care about what Quebec wants.”

Mr. Bourassa was no fool. He retorted, “What does Canada want?”

Several weeks have passed, and over the past few weeks, we have heard the invective and the disparaging, dishonourable remarks sometimes tinged with a thinly veiled neo-colonial attitude from across Canada.

However, now that Quebec has once again clearly expressed what it wants and what it does not want, Canada's response has been this: “Drink our oil and shut up.”

What can we expect from this federation and its government when we ask that Quebec's democratic laws be respected? This federation cannot stand it when we want to protect our environment, our land, our air, and our water. Is it surprising that the federal government intends to circumvent Quebec's rules of democracy? No.

It is surprising, however, to see so many of the 78 elected members from Quebec remain silent on this. It is disappointing to see some members from Quebec trumpeting western Canada's oil industry instead of standing up for their constituents, their towns, their communities, and especially their own nation.

Essentially, I am calling on the government to do the right thing. That is why I am again asking that it withdraw from the court challenge orchestrated by the henchmen of the partitionist movement. I am no fool. I do not expect much. That is why I am a separatist and why millions of Quebeckers are separatists who want their own country. I assure you it will happen.

As time goes on, we see more and more that Canada is not the country of Quebeckers. More than ever, French North America as a whole is faced with the prospect of being wiped out because Quebec is not respected by this House, because the only francophone state in North America is systematically belittled by the Canadian majority, and sometimes by its Supreme Court, which often leans the same way.

“What does Quebec want?” The question is futile because, in any event, practically no one listens to Quebec anymore. As time goes on, it becomes more and more obvious that Canada is holding back Quebec. As time goes on, it becomes more and more obvious that Quebec's place is among other countries. We are not a province, we are a nation.

Our place is not among Canada's closed files. We are the Quebec nation, and believe me, our strong and democratic voice will be heard for a very long time.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this debate on the Government of Canada's position on the Henderson case.

It is important to understand that Canada did not initiate this dispute. The Government of Canada has been brought into this case, and all we can do is confirm our long-standing position, which is in line with the well-known 1998 Supreme Court ruling.

In Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court identified four principles of the Constitution as well as the applicable Canadian constitutional framework.

Canada's position is simple: all legislative measures affecting the rules for the secession of a province must comply with the law, as established by the Constitution and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Government of Canada has stated that the courts must read Quebec's Bill 99 in accordance with the Constitution and in accordance with the Supreme Court's definitive interpretation.

The Government of Canada maintains that the Superior Court should strike down the disputed provisions of Bill 99 only if it deems that they are unconstitutional and that they lie outside the jurisdiction of the Quebec legislature.

The Supreme Court of Canada unequivocally stated in 1998, in Reference re Secession of Quebec, that no province can unilaterally secede from Canada under domestic or international law.

The court concluded that, in order to be legal, the secession of a Canadian province would require a constitutional amendment. Furthermore, the court found that a referendum has no legal effect on its own, although it may carry political weight.

The Supreme Court found that Canada and the provinces would be required to negotiate only if a province had a clear majority vote on secession based on a clear question.

In any case, what has been clear for many years is that Quebeckers do not want a referendum. The government does not intend to reopen the constitutional talks of 30 years ago. Those talks belong in the past and we do not intend to become involved in a political discussion that belongs to the ancient past.

Canadians have had enough of this debate. Priority should instead be given to the current and future needs of Quebeckers and all Canadians.

In closing, no one wants another referendum. The Government of Canada continues to focus on Quebeckers' priorities and to work with the provinces in order to create jobs and grow the economy.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my colleague across the way about the jurisprudence.

We all know that precedents are legally binding in a free and democratic society, especially under the rule of law.

Even the House recognized that Quebec is a nation, and although I do not personally find the terms of that recognition satisfactory, it will do for a start. Quebec is a nation.

Two important precedents exist with respect to Quebec democracy. In 1980, we got 40%. In 1995, we got 50%. Both times, the “no” camp came up with some legal stumbling blocks, and we still have no clarity about exactly what transpired.

When it comes to democracy, Quebec does not need any lessons from any institution or state because it is a pioneer of democratic law, particularly with respect to political party fundraising. We have a wealth of historic precedent.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our position in this case is the position the Government of Canada has always held. Quebec's Bill 99 should be read by the court in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution as determined definitively by the Supreme Court.

What the Bloc Québécois is trying to do is re-open old, constitutional debates.

Contrary to what the sovereignists would have us believe about this case, which started at least 15 years ago, the government's position simply reflects the rule of law in Canada as established by the Supreme Court of Canada. We will focus on what matters most to Quebeckers and all Canadians: co-operation, jobs and the economy.

Canada Post

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to follow-up on a question that I asked in December. It was prompted by some shock at an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press where some of my fellow MPs from Winnipeg, who belong to the Liberal Party, were saying that post-election, having gone to their constituents, a lot of them were now expressing that they were just fine with having lost their home mail service and that they were not looking to have it restored.

It goes against my experience. In Elmwood—Transcona, throughout the campaign and indeed after, I hear from many people who are concerned about losing their home mail delivery and are disappointed in the government failure so far to restore what has already been cut.

Home mail delivery service is important. It is important to many different people. It is important to seniors who are struggling to stay in their homes. That struggle often is what we might call a battle of straws, many things that add up that finally force people out of their homes. Having to walk a block or two to a community mailbox, especially in winter in Winnipeg, is no small straw on the back of seniors trying to stay in their family home and not have to move into an apartment or other facility. These are the people who are very concerned.

There are people living with disabilities for whom having to travel to a community mailbox is no small issue. There are people who may have simply decided that home mail delivery service is an amenity just like any other that we consider when purchasing a home who are now losing it. In that sense it is not unlike the library moving to a different end of town or a community pool closing down.

We know, however, that home mail delivery, even though it is an important service to people, is not where Canada Post is making its most money. We know that parcel delivery brings in more revenue than home mail service, but part of our point is that a public corporation has a mandate to also provide public services.

We believe that is a service worth paying for, particularly in light of the fact that Canada Post has not been losing money. The only time in recent memory that it lost a lot of money was when the employees were locked out by the Conservative government.

We maintain that this is a service worth keeping. We are anxious that the review that the Liberals have undertaken will come to that conclusion for all the people who want to keep that service.

An area of concern, however, is around the TPP that was being signed today. We know that there are provisions for crown corporations. We know what those provisions say, at least in general terms, that public corporations have to behave as if they were a commercial enterprise.

There is a lot still to be studied with respect to the TPP, but surely the Liberal government, in its desire for good governance and understanding the policy implications of major decisions, has done an analysis, surely, of the effect that signing the TPP may have on a review of Canada Post services, and the effect of a requirement that public corporations act as commercial entities may have on the outcome of that review.

I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary can shed some light on the government's understanding of what those provisions in the TPP may mean for home mail delivery in Canada.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this evening on the future of Canada Post.

Since pre-Confederation days, the postal service has linked Canadians together from coast to coast to coast. All Canadians continue to rely on Canada Post today. However, as well as being integral to our lives, Canada Post also has a commercial mandate and a legislated requirement to be self-sufficient.

In 2013, Canada Post, directed by the previous government, put in place a five-point plan and began to phase out door-to-door delivery in favour of community mailboxes. On October 26, one week after the election, Canada Post suspended the conversion from home delivery to community mailboxes.

On October 26, in his mandate letter to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Prime Minister directed that she undertake a review of Canada Post to ensure that it provides the high-quality service that Canadians expect at a reasonable price. Indeed, that aligns with what we said during the election.

This government has also made a commitment to evidence-based decision-making. We need to have the facts and evidence. Canadians expect transparency and they deserve to see this information.

Canadians can take part in the discussion on the future of Canada Post. That is why the government promised to conduct an evidence-based, inclusive review process that welcomes the opinions of many stakeholders, including those of all Canadians.

As part of this review, we will consult with Canadians of all ages and from all walks of life to get their point of view. We want to know what people want and expect from their postal service.

I encourage all hon. members to do their part to promote a respectful exchange with and between Canadians across the country.

In short, we are doing what we promised we would. We promised to suspend the installation of community mailboxes and that is what happened.

We also promised to conduct a comprehensive, independent review that would allow all Canadians to have a say on the future of Canada Post. Canadians can expect to have more information on this review shortly.

The independent review will consist in a comprehensive consultation process in which Canadians will be able to share their concerns.

This review will be a prudent step. It will put the facts and evidence on the table; it will allow for an open, inclusive, and full public conversation about Canada Post; and it will allow Canadians and the government to make educated and informed choices together.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the debate always works best when two ships do not pass in the night.

I just want to be clear about what my question was. I understand that the government will conducting a review. We heard from the hon. member that Canada Post does indeed have a commercial mandate. Our concern is that that commercial mandate not overshadow its public mandate. I am concerned that with the signing of the TPP and certain provisions in that agreement, the results of the review and the question of its commercial mandate versus public mandate may be prejudiced by these.

I am just looking for some assurances from the parliamentary secretary tonight that they have looked at that and understand the potential implications of the TPP for Canada Post and the further review they have undertaken. That is what I am really hoping she can speak to right now.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's plan to convert door-to-door delivery has been suspended.

This government is committed to a comprehensive and independent review, an open and transparent review that will inform and consult Canadians and give them a role in the choices that are made around their postal service.

This review seeks to ensure that Canada Post provides the high-quality services that Canadians expect, at a reasonable price.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.)