Debates of April 27th, 2021

Proceedings on a Bill Entitled An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Operations at the Port of Montreal

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the approach of the current government is a failed approach. It is exactly the wrong thing to do. We need to allow for parties to negotiate freely. Putting forward legislation like this undermines the process. Everyone on the Liberal benches know this. The members have met with folks in the labour movement and know that this is the exact opposite of what they should do. When negotiations are going on, this undermines the process. They know this very well. They can try to spin it, but they know they are doing the wrong thing. They are not defending the rights of workers. In fact, they are undermining that actively, and that is wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we have two previous examples under the Liberal government: one with Canada Post, where it legislated workers back to work; and one with CN, where it was widely thought it would and when the government said it would not, the company and the union were able to quickly reach an agreement. What is happening at Canada Post? It is still struggling to come to a meaningful agreement and the workplace is toxic.

I wonder if the hon. leader of the NDP would like to expound a bit on those important examples.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for highlighting a really great example of recent history. We know exactly what happens when back-to-work legislation is used. We have seen it with Canada Post and the ongoing issues. It is exactly right to look at the contrary example with CN, which reached a resolution that resulted in a long-term, long-standing solution that will work and will result in a better outcome for everyone.

Right now, the Liberal government is undermining workers, which makes things worse in the short term and in the long run. It is wrong. It still has time to turn things around, withdraw the legislation, support workers and stop doing exactly what the Conservatives would do.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it gives me no pleasure to rise in the House to speak to not only a closure motion, but closure on a bill that violates the fundamental rights of workers. It is not a good day for our democratic life or our parliamentary life.

It was almost 10 years ago that I was first elected to the House to represent the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I remember quite well that the first battle we fought as an NDP team with Jack Layton was on back-to-work legislation for Canada Post, and once again we defended the rights of workers. A Conservative government was in power and it was violating the rights of postal workers. Ten years later, I am still standing in the House defending the rights of workers, which are now being trampled by a Liberal government.

This is proof positive that, when it comes time to take a stand, the government, whether blue or red, always sides with the employers, the bosses, the richest people in our society. It never sides with ordinary Canadians and with the workers who are just trying to improve their lives, to get by and to pay the bills. They simply want a chance to improve their living and working conditions.

I want to take a moment to remind everyone that social progress does not appear out of thin air. Social progress happens when there are men and women who join forces, organize and take action together, collectively, to change the ground rules and improve society in order to create more respect, justice and equality. This is done through various avenues, including community associations, citizens' groups, the women's movement and the environmental movement. There are a lot of things going on in our society, and there have been for a long time. There is also the labour movement, and we have come a long way in this area.

Unions were illegal in Canada until 1872. It was not just difficult to unionize. It was illegal. Workers had to fight for their rights and to improve their working conditions. They had to fight to go from poverty and exploitation to a situation where they were able to earn a decent living, support their families and have some hope for the future by building a legacy that would help their children to have a better life.

Labour laws and laws governing minimum wage, labour contracts and collective agreements did not appear out of thin air. People got together and said that enough was enough. They decided that they were going to use pressure tactics to fight for better working conditions. Overall, it has worked fairly well. If we compare 19th century working conditions with those of today, it is clear that progress has been made. Much of that progress comes from workers obtaining the right and the option to use pressure tactics and to make demands to improve their situation.

I have been saying this for years, and I will say it again. The Liberals say they are standing up for the middle class and those seeking to join it, but I would remind the Liberal government that much of the middle class owes its existence to the labour movement in our society. Broadly speaking, the middle class and the creation of unions, be it in municipalities, public services or private enterprise, go hand in hand. People fought to bring about what is essentially a middle class whose members can afford to buy a house, to buy a car, an electric one, ideally, and to go on vacation when travel is allowed.

Over time, the bargaining process has been fine-tuned. There have been ups and downs. Some years have been good for unions, others not so much. That is all part of the balance of power, but attempts have been made to create rules that are good for everyone, that level the playing field at the bargaining table and establish a framework for relationships that can sometimes be tense and adversarial, while remaining civilized.

Let us not forget that the union movement and workers relinquished the possibility of triggering a strike at any time, which was a historic concession. Now there is a process to be followed, notices to be given, laws to be obeyed and so forth.

In the case of the Port of Montreal, this process was meticulously followed and even resulted in a truce that lasted several weeks last year. The workers wanted to defend their working conditions—especially their schedules, which I will come back to—and did so by following the rules.

Once again, the Liberal government is using a bazooka or a sledgehammer to deprive workers at the Port of Montreal of their bargaining power. I find that mind-boggling. All last week, union leaders said that if the port authority stopped meddling with their schedules and provided job security, they would not go on strike, they would stop using pressure tactics and they would return to the bargaining table to come up with a freely negotiated solution.

Before the unlimited general strike could even be called at the Port of Montreal, the Liberal Minister of Labour announced that special legislation would be introduced to force dockworkers back to work in the event of such a strike. The general strike had not even been called, but the government had already sent the employer the message that it could sit idly by and do nothing because, in any case, the government would be there to help, after having tilted the balance of power away from the union and the workers.

This Liberal government claims to be a friend of workers and of the labour movement of Canada, but every chance it gets, it sides with the employer and upsets the balance at the bargaining table. That balance, however, is a constitutional right, since the Supreme Court in 2015 ruled in a Saskatchewan case that the right to call a strike and use pressure tactics is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why are the Liberals addicted to special legislation? Why do they attack workers at every opportunity? What is more, the Port of Montreal is doing well. It is not a company that is struggling, that is on the verge of bankruptcy or that is unable to fulfill its obligations. On the contrary, business is booming at the Port of Montreal, and so there is no reason for a labour dispute there. Why does the employer want so much flexibility and the ability to meddle with the work schedules of dockworkers? I do not understand that at all. There is no financial or economic reason to justify it.

Speaking of economic impacts, it is clear that pressure tactics have repercussions. That is part of the rules of the game. That is how our labour relations system is built. It enables workers to put pressure on the employer to force the employer back to the bargaining table so that a mutually acceptable compromise can be reached. That is how it works, and usually it works well, when there is no special legislation. The Port of Montreal is profitable. People need to know that and it needs to be said.

The other important thing that I found particularly inappropriate was the misinformation being spread by the Minister of Labour. She says the government is worried. She says port operations must continue because we are in the midst of a pandemic and medicines and public health are important.

Whenever there were labour disputes in the past, the dock workers' union has always made it very clear that medical supplies, goods destined for hospitals and items used to care for people would be unloaded and transferred even during an unlimited general strike. I think that is worth saying again and again, because people need to know that the strike will in no way jeopardize public health.

The Liberals are once again giving a huge advantage to management. Lucky thing both parties are still at the bargaining table. Let us hope that a solution will be negotiated before this devastating bill is passed in the House.

Again we are seeing the Liberals and Conservatives walking hand in hand when it comes to violating the union rights of workers. In fact, and I think my colleague from Windsor West mentioned it, the use of such draconian parliamentary or legislative tools could spoil labour relations at the Port of Montreal for years to come. The Liberal government will bear some responsibility for that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, not once, but twice, the leader of the New Democratic Party was asked a very straightforward question: Are there any circumstances whatsoever in which the NDP at the national level would support back-to-work legislation?

I think that is a very important question that should be answered, and I am asking the member to do so. Canadians understand that there are situations where provincial NDP governments have introduced back-to-work legislation.

Would the NDP, under any circumstances at the national level, bring in back-to-work legislation?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting theoretical question. I look forward to being the labour minister to be able to answer the parliamentary secretary.

In turn, I would like to ask him if there are circumstances in which the Liberal government would not join forces with management to trample and violate workers' rights, for once.

Are there circumstances in which the Liberal Party would stand up for workers?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in ethics, a value is said to be authentic when an individual has a chance to practise or apply it and chooses to do so. Otherwise, it remains only an intention.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is certainly not the first time we have seen the Liberals trample workers' rights. We saw it in the Aveos case, where the court ruled in favour of the workers. The Liberals decided to pass retroactive legislation to undo the court ruling.

The right to strike is a fundamental right that has been granted to workers by legislation passed in the House. In addition, under sections 105 and 107 of the Canada Labour Code, mediation could have been given one last chance and then imposed. I do not understand why the government is choosing this path. The government ignores fundamental rights when that is what suits it.

I listened to the opposition leader. He is very eloquent, but I am not sure whether my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie understood his position. In order for a minority government to get legislation passed, it must have the support of one other party. I have a feeling the Conservatives will be voting in favour of this bill.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and his comments.

Indeed, we are once again seeing the Liberals and Conservatives working together to undermine a fundamental right and the Quebec labour movement.

Daniel Boyer, president of the FTQ; Marc Ranger, director of CUPE Quebec; and Denis Bolduc, general secretary of the FTQ, spoke out today about the right of workers to take job action and to strike.

Sadly, the Liberals seem to think this fundamental right is a theoretical one. The right to strike means nothing if the government is going to keep shoving special legislation down workers' throats—using time allocation, no less.

That is what the Liberals are doing today, and it is shameful.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I want to say loud and clear that I completely agree with him. This is a fundamental right of workers. I think it is awful that such a bill should be introduced once again.

Every time back-to-work legislation has come before the House since I have had the honour to represent Saanich—Gulf Islands, for nearly 10 years now, I have voted no because it is not fair to the workers to have management know that they can count on the government to bring in back-to-work legislation.

I ask my hon. colleague this. Does he have any sense, as a Quebec MP, if we have a chance of seeing fair, open collective bargaining if this bill is defeated?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member shares the NDP's position and that she will vote the same way we will.

The last time I checked, the two parties were in discussions. I hope they will be able to come to an agreement that will support work-life balance for all workers.

At the same time, let us be realistic. The sword of Damocles that the Liberals hung over the union's head has greatly benefited management and upset the balance at the bargaining table.

Because of the Liberal government's bad decisions, then, there is not much reason for hope.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I will let the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour know there are about seven minutes remaining before we will have to interrupt for other business this afternoon. He will have the remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the Port of Montreal is vital to the economies of both Canada and Quebec. It is the main point of entry for goods and materials that Canadians and businesses depend on, especially in Quebec and Ontario.

A partial work stoppage began at the Port of Montreal on April 13. On April 26, it became a full work stoppage. The Port of Montreal is the second-largest container port in Canada. Every year it handles over 1.6 million 20-foot containers and 35 million tonnes of cargo representing $40 billion in goods.

The current work stoppage is impeding the flow of $270 million per week in cargo through the port. It is also harming the transportation industry by imposing significant costs on Canadian businesses that use the port, for example through increased transportation costs and lost sales due to import and export delays, and it is affecting the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians whose jobs directly and indirectly depend on it.

Even before the strike action began, industries and businesses regularly shipping through the port began to make alternative plans. Due to this anxiety in the supply chain, there was a decrease in container volumes at the port worth $30 million per week for the month of March 2021 compared with the previous year. The initial partial work stoppage further reduced port capacity by approximately 30%, representing a loss of cargo volumes worth an estimated $90 million per week.

All of this comes at a time when industries are still struggling to recover from major economic disruptions over the past year. It is clear that the effects of this work stoppage, if it continues, would have an enormous impact on the Canadian economy. How did this happen? How do we find ourselves in these circumstances? Let me take a few minutes to explain how it came to this.

The employers here are represented by the Maritime Employers Association, or MEA. The MEA is a voluntary employers' association representing all maritime employers, including terminal operators, stevedoring companies and ship owners operating at the Port of Montreal. The MEA has the exclusive right to bargain on behalf of those employers in negotiations with the Syndicat des Débardeurs, also known as CUPE Local 375. CUPE Local 375 represents approximately 1,100 longshore workers. These workers are responsible for the loading and unloading of vessels and other related work at the Port of Montreal. Needless to say, their work is vital to the smooth operation of the port.

First of all, it is important to point out that the last collective agreement between the Maritime Employers Association and CUPE 375 expired on December 31, 2018. The two parties began negotiations to renew the collective agreement in September 2018, nearly four months before it expired.

The federal mediation and conciliation service has been working closely with the parties since October 2018. On October 23, 2018, the employer filed an application with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, under subsection 87.4(4) of the Canada Labour Code to determine which activities would need to be maintained in the event of a work stoppage at the port.

Neither of the parties could initiate a work stoppage while the board was considering what services needed to be maintained. Ultimately, the CIRB found that the parties did not have to maintain any activities in the event of a work stoppage beyond their statutory obligation under the Canada Labour Code to continue service to grain vessels. However, the CIRB did acknowledge the union's commitment to continue servicing two vessels that supply Newfoundland and Labrador.

The parties were legally entitled to begin a strike or lockout as of the date of the decision, provided they gave 72-hour notice. That is exactly what happened. Four work stoppages occurred in the summer of 2020, each greater in duration and impact than the last.

An unlimited general strike finally began on August 10, 2020. There was also increasing tension at the port. On August 13, 2020, eight people were arrested and charged with intimidation, mischief and assault following a confrontation between union members and managers who were replacing workers.

Eleven days later, on August 21, 2020, the parties agreed of their own accord to a seven-month truce during which they would keep bargaining and end work stoppages. That truce ended on March 21, 2021.

Throughout that time, the parties continued to receive intense mediation support from federal mediators. On February 4, 2021, two veteran federal negotiators were assigned to help with negotiations.

The Minister of Labour also wrote to the parties, urging them to work with the mediators to reach an agreement—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member will have 13 and a half minutes remaining the next time the bill comes before the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Standing Orders of the House

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Deputy House Leader of the Government]

moved:

That:

(a) the House (i) recognize that science and research are of critical importance to all Canadians, including, but not limited to, improving the health of Canadians, improving the environment, driving innovation and economic growth, and improving the quality of life of Canadians, (ii) recognize that science and research are more important than ever, as the economic, environmental and social challenges we face are greater, (iii) affirm its commitment to science, research and evidence-informed decision-making;

(b) effective from the beginning of the 44th Parliament, the Standing Orders be amended as follows:

(i) That Standing Order 104(2) be replaced with the following:

“Membership of standing committees.

(2) The standing committees, which shall consist of 10 members, and for which the lists of members are to be prepared, except as provided in section (1) of this standing order, shall be on:

(a) Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics;

(b) Agriculture and Agri-Food;

(c) Canadian Heritage;

(d) Citizenship and Immigration;

(e) Environment and Sustainable Development;

(f) Finance;

(g) Fisheries and Oceans;

(h) Foreign Affairs and International Development;

(i) Government Operations and Estimates;

(j) Health;

(k) Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

(l) Indigenous and Northern Affairs;

(m) Industry and Technology;

(n) International Trade;

(o) Justice and Human Rights;

(p) National Defence;

(q) Natural Resources;

(r) Official Languages;

(s) Procedure and House Affairs;

(t) Public Accounts;

(u) Public Safety and National Security;

(v) Science and Research;

(w) the Status of Women;

(x) Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; and

(y) Veterans Affairs.”

(ii) That Standing Order 108(2) be amended by adding after the words “in sections (3)(a), (3)(f), (3)(h)” the following: “, (3)(i)”; and

(iii) That the following subsection be added after Standing Order 108(3)(h):

“Science and Research.

(i) Science and Research shall include, among other matters, the review of and report on all matters relating to science and research, including any reports of the Chief Science Advisor, and any other matter which the House shall, from time to time, refer to the standing committee.”;

(c) the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential alterations to the Standing Orders as may be required; and

(d) the Clerk of the House be instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders.

Madam Speaker, science and research matter. Our world-leading scientists and researchers and our outstanding students and research institutions deserve a dedicated voice in Parliament. That means a permanent standing committee on science and research beginning in the 44th Parliament. Not only is this long overdue, but it is critically important to building the future Canadians deserve.

Motion No. 38 seeks to create a standing committee on science and research in the 44th Parliament and parliaments going forward. This really matters because science has never been more important in our country's history.

This has been an unprecedented year for people and the planet. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives worldwide, and the climate emergency continues with record heat, devastating storms, wildfires and worsening droughts and floods. It is science that will bring the pandemic to an end. It is science and research that will fuel our restart. It is science that will charge our economic recovery. We must turn the recovery from the pandemic into a real opportunity to build a better future, a future driven by knowledge forged by curiosity and a quest for understanding.

To achieve this shared goal, all governments need reliable and solid science. They need strong collaboration with academia and scientific and research institutions to make evidence-based decisions that can tackle the greatest challenges of our time. In 2021, science will remain our most powerful tool in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

Let me be clear: Science and research have always mattered, and they will matter more than ever beyond the pandemic. Science holds real promise for people, society and our planet. Science impacts each of our lives. We must pay attention to it. That means valuing both the method and the results. We must foster children's natural-born curiosity through elementary school, high school and beyond, and we should inspire children and young people to wonder; to question; to ask why, what if and how; to build; to design; and to invent. They will be the future of science and the future of a society that respects and values the products of science.

Science saves lives through antibiotics, cancer drugs and vaccines, and through improved public health practices, such as masking and physical distancing, to prevent the spread of diseases like COVID-19. Science powers the solutions that make life easier, such as electricity, cars, computers, the Internet and cellphones. It helps us understand the mysteries of our universe, the world around us and our role in it. Science improves education and quality of life, and indeed extends and saves life.

Science and research also matter for their own sake. Research is about discovery, not just about solving human problems and developing new technologies. The reality is that science changes the lives of Canadians.

Canada has tremendous researchers and inspiring students who deserve to be formally heard about being better prepared for a future pandemic, about breakthroughs in science and technology that create powerful new solutions to address climate change, about the long-term health of science and research in our country, about ensuring that the benefits of science are fully shared across Canada and among all Canadians and about the challenges they face as scientists, researchers and students.

We are a country of discoverers, inventors and innovators. We have a long history of scientific achievement, including standard time, insulin, infant pablum, pacemakers, stem cells, canola, Canadarm, double lung transplants and smart phone deep learning, just to name a few Canadian achievements. During the pandemic, our scientists at, for example, the University Health Network in Toronto or at the University of Saskatchewan's Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization are continuing to do the critical work to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We should all be proud of our researchers' incredible achievements, and their work should be a source of immense national pride.

Although Canada has world-leading researchers and a long history of tremendous scientific accomplishments, the House of Commons lacks a dedicated standing committee on science and research. According to the Library of Parliament, there have been five House of Commons standing committees with either science or research in their titles, and science has been combined with such subject areas as industry and energy, industry and technology, and regional and northern development.

The United Kingdom has a science and technology committee to ensure that government policies and decision-making are based on solid scientific evidence and advice. They are reaping the benefits of this structure and focus. The United States has the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology. In its early years, the committee was an important partner in the Apollo program that led to the first person landing on the moon. It strengthens science, education and research.

Let us think of what it took for astronaut Neil Armstrong to take the first step on the moon in 1969. Katherine Johnson had to calculate rocket trajectories. Engineers had to figure out how to escape earth's gravity. Supercomputers, which filled whole buildings, had to be scaled down. Spacesuits, helmets, gloves and oxygen-supplying backpacks all had to be developed. The lunar module had to be designed and developed. Nothing existed. Everything had to be imagined, designed and built from scratch. These inventions led to brand new sectors in today's economy. That is the transformative power of strong committee-backed science. Let us imagine the benefit to Canada of a strong dedicated committee.

Over the past 50 years, it has been rare for Canada's Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology or its predecessor committees to produce a substantive science report. In fact, a very broad reading of the data shows only 12 substantive reports over the last 54 years. Even in the last Parliament, only two of 27 reports by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, or INDU, were linked to science and research. That is about 7%. The point is that the INDU committee rarely talks about science and research, yet they are so fundamentally important to addressing the pandemic, the climate emergency and our future. We will not create the future we imagine without science having a strong and ever-present voice.

If anyone is wondering why we lag behind other comparator nations in terms of the profile for science, this is surely an important reason. Our Parliament does not have a dedicated mechanism that encourages anyone to focus on science and research. We need to be better stewards of knowledge and the options it gives us.

The point is that science and research have largely been ignored, unexplored and merely tacked on to the House of Commons parliamentary committees in Canada. In fact, there has been no review of federal science funding in Canada for over 40 years until I commissioned the fundamental science review. Can anyone imagine any other sector having such little attention from and oversight by parliamentarians, all while playing such an important role in driving innovation, economic growth and a better quality of life for all Canadians? Science and research, if nurtured wisely, will be central to how we build the future that Canadians deserve.

This lack of oversight over science and research hurts us. If we want Canada to be the scientific and research powerhouse we have the tremendous wealth of talent to be, we need a standing committee focused on the long-term health of science and research in our country. By voting for this motion, we have a chance to acknowledge our responsibility to protect science and research and anchor them in one of our most important democratic institutions.

Science and research should have a permanent place where issues that are important to the research community, Canadians and the future of the country can be studied. There should be a place where scientists, researchers and parliamentarians can come to know one another; where parliamentarians can get a better understanding of science and research; where parliamentarians can learn about Canada's research strengths in such areas as artificial intelligence and deep learning, immunotherapy, nanotech, next generation genomics, personalized medicine, quantum computing and science; where parliamentarians can learn about what is needed to make improvements with real benefits for Canadians. It is time for scientists, researchers and students to be given the key to the people's House.

Imagine if the science and research committee had existed at the start of the pandemic. Parliamentarians could have heard directly from the chief science adviser and departmental chief scientists, or whomever else parliamentarians thought they needed to hear from. They could have heard the best scientific evidence on the virus, the pandemic, protective measures and what was needed to mobilize the scientific and research community. After all, science is our best way through and out of the pandemic.

I should mention that we are all very grateful for the tireless work of government scientists, academic researchers and all those who provided scientific advice to all levels of government.

Science is not a club. It is not for a select few. Science is for everyone. Canadians should have better access to the science and research they fund because science and research provide our best hope for solutions to improving health, addressing the climate crisis, jump-starting economic growth and growing jobs. Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We now have to go to questions and comments, for which we have five minutes.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Etobicoke North for her speech.

I agree that the pandemic has highlighted how little Canadian governments have prioritized science and research over the years. I would like to know if the need for independence in research is a priority for her government.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say that science should not be a partisan issue. It is a fundamental building block of Canada that everyone in this House has a stake in. Everyone should fight for it. In a politically charged environment and in a polarized world, science, evidence and fact offer shared understanding and common ground.

We need all sides of this House, all members of Parliament, fighting for fundamental and applied science and research. We need to take a stand to say that we learned from COVID-19, that we have finally learned what we always learn following a pandemic, which is mainly that science, research and public health matter. Not just what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing this important motion before us today. She mentioned the Naylor report on fundamental science, which she commissioned and tabled in 2017. Now, four years later, only one of its 10 recommendations has been fully carried out. Six have been partially acted on and three remain completely ignored.

I want to know how the member feels about that slow rollout of the Naylor recommendations. Would it not be a great first study for a new science and research standing committee to study the implementation of that report?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the research investments that our government has made: the largest in Canadian history, at $10 billion.

Having a science and research committee is long overdue. It is critically important to building the future we deserve. We all know this has been an unprecedented year, and that science and research are a way through and out of the pandemic. Unfortunately, science and research are rarely talked about at the INDU committee and we are missing an opportunity. Science and research need a permanent place where issues important to the research community, to Canadians and to the future of the country can be studied. This is not a partisan issue, it is a fundamental building block—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to allow for more questions.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague who is a scientist, the hon. member for Etobicoke North, for her role as minister for science in commissioning the Naylor report. I strongly support Motion No. 38.

My only question for the hon. member is, as a scientist, why does she believe it is so difficult to get non-scientists to understand how critical it is to listen to the advice of science experts? Whether it is on the climate crisis, COVID or any number of issues, when we are guided by science and stand on evidence, we are less likely to make mistakes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my long-time friend and colleague for her important question and I thank her for her support.

Science and research matter to improving our environment, health, quality of life, innovation and economy. If we look back over a half century, science has received a tiny proportion of the INDU committee's attention. We should all be asking ourselves how that can be good for Canadians. What opportunities passed us by? Now we have the opportunity to ensure that science and research have a clear place in the work of the House of Commons. A science and research committee could help identify how science will best serve Canadians' interests and all of us—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by offering congratulations to my colleague, my hon. friend the deputy House leader, for putting forward Motion No. 38. She occupies the post of deputy House leader, which I occupied for the nine-year period between 2006 and 2015. Today, I will be drawing a little upon that experience in my comments.

My hon. colleague's long history of scientific research is well documented. As evidence of the timeliness of her concern, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it was nearly 20 years ago that she published her book, Hunting the 1918 Flu, warning that we might need to prepare for the next time a similarly deadly virus stalked the globe. That turned out to be a very prescient book indeed.

Motion No. 38 would amend the Standing Orders to create a new House standing committee on science and research, which would take effect permanently at the beginning of the 44th Parliament. Specifically, Motion No. 38 would amend Standing Order 104(2), which lists the standing committees, or permanent committees, of the House. It would add a 25th committee to the list of 24 committees already therein.

In principle, I support the creation of such a committee, and the real question is why none has ever existed thus far, given the importance of the subject matter. However, my remarks today focus not on the merits of the committee itself, but on the merits of creating this change to the Standing Orders with a simple majority vote in the House of Commons. I want to focus not on the merits of the substance of Motion No. 38, but on the merits of the process being used to change the Standing Orders with the adoption by means of a simple majority vote.

At first glance one might ask how else do we get from here to there if what is needed is a change to the Standing Orders. In a sense, this is true. We cannot have a new committee without changing the Standing Orders, and we cannot change the Standing Orders without having a vote on which majority rules.

The other side of the issue is that there is a higher standard. In addition to the formal rule that Standing Orders are to be changed by means of a simple majority vote, a convention in the process of developing is that these rules should not be changed except by the consent of the House leadership of all the recognized parties. This is not quite the same thing as requiring unanimous consent, but it is in the same neighbourhood.

It may well be true that the proposed changes to the Standing Orders contemplated in Motion No. 38 should be treated as an exception to this convention, but if so, it is necessary for us to carefully distinguish how Motion No. 38 is different in nature from other proposed changes that have required all-party consent, and therefore how Motion No. 38 may be properly distinguished from the practice laid out in the convention.

I am drawing upon the term “distinguished” from the law. A court may find itself dealing with a case that shares many features with some prior case or a set of cases. The precedence established in those prior cases ought, under normal circumstances, to apply to the case then being considered.

However, it may be that the court concludes that there are materially different facts between the present case and the ones that had previously been considered. If so, the court makes it clear that the legal reasoning used in the preceding case does not apply to the present one, and the court forms its new ruling around a different set of reasonings, which appear to the court to be more appropriate to the current circumstances.

I will return to whether or not Motion No. 38 may or may not be properly distinguished from the general run of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. However, first, I need to explain the reason why so many of us in this place take the need for all-party consent so seriously when Standing Order changes are being contemplated.

A number of changes to the Standing Orders that have in recent years either been contemplated or actually implemented have had the potential to change the power relations between the players in the House. Sometimes the decision has been for the rules to go into effect immediately, with the clear goal of increasing the ability of the government to control the legislative agenda or to strip away the power of the opposition to delay or challenge legislation.

There have been notable occasions on which the current government has been willing to move forward using its majority as a lever to change the Standing Orders without all-party consensus. My party and I have fought against this with all our might, and I am very proud of our record in this regard.

In March 1, 2017, the government proposed sweeping changes to the Standing Orders, which would have had the effect of altering the balance of power in the House. This was done by way of a government motion at the procedure and House affairs committee, to endorse a pre-written discussion paper, implementing a set of changes that would have greatly limited the procedural tools at the disposal of opposition parties.

The government's plan was to use its majority on the procedure and House affairs committee to cause the proposals in the discussion paper to be endorsed in a party-line vote at that committee and then have the House vote concurrence in the committee's report. My response, as the lead member of the Conservative Party on the committee, was to propose an amendment to the motion and then, with the capable assistance of some other MPs, debate the motion in a de facto filibuster [Technical difficulty—Editor]. This remains the longest filibuster in Canadian history and makes the point that there are many here who believe deeply that any change to the Standing Orders that alters the power relations between parties or, for that matter, any other set of power arrangements within the House of Commons, including those between party leaders and backbenchers, ought to be decided by means of all-party consensus.

In a minority government such as the present one, the use of force majeure is not available in the same way. In the present Parliament, we have seen more widespread use of all-party consensus mechanism than was the case in the past. The mechanism seeking all-party consent has been used for the numerous temporary adjustments to the Standing Orders adopted in the course of the 43rd Parliament that allow us to meet in a hybrid fashion, to alter the seating plan for reasons of personal safety and to suspend the [Technical difficulty—Editor], among other things. These changes have all been negotiated by the House leaders of the various parties behind closed doors.

I do not know how things work in the other parties, but in the case of my party, the House leader and whip have explained to our caucus at our regular caucus meetings what changes were being contemplated and have tried to ensure [Technical difficulty—Editor] change to the relevant Standing Orders take place without a mandate in the form of an internal party caucus [Technical difficulty—Editor]. This has made the negotiations slower than might have seemed ideal, but the arrangements that we have developed are vastly more inclusive than what existed at the start of the pandemic.

A similar process was [Technical difficulty—Editor] used in the 42nd Parliament to deal with my own proposal to amend the Standing Orders so as to elect the Speaker by preferential ballot. I mention this in part to make the point that the emerging consensus of all-party consent [Technical difficulty—Editor] that precedes a change of government. A convention is not truly a convention until it has survived a change [Technical difficulty—Editor] and continues to operate now that all players have changed their positions. The committee considered my proposed motion, and its report neither endorsed nor rejected the proposal. It was really a way of communicating to the House the committee's view that each party ought to allow its own members a free vote on that proposed change to the Standing Orders. A free vote followed. Some members of each party voted against, some [Technical difficulty—Editor] and the result was a change. The point is that the process itself was the product of a [Technical difficulty—Editor].

The purpose of the foregoing comments has been to clearly articulate the emerging convention regarding the requirement to seek and obtain the consent of all parties in the Commons before making changes to the Standing Orders. To allow an apparent exception to this rule without articulating why this particular case is different and why it is permissible to move forward on a simple up-down [Technical difficulty—Editor] would have the effect of weakening that convention by showing a willingness to casually set it aside. What is needed, and what I hope I am providing here, is a clear distinction between motions that amend the Standing Orders in ways that affect power relations and those that do not.

I turn to the final presentation. It is my view that Motion No. 38 may be properly distinguished from the kinds of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders that have given rise to the convention. Motion No. 38 is materially very different from the kinds of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders that have given rise to the convention. It does not change the way the House of Commons operates and it does not alter power arrangements among the various players in the House. For example, it does [Technical difficulty—Editor] the number of members at the standing committees, it does not change how members are selected for those committees or how the committees operate or how chairs and vice-chairs are elected, including for the new committee.

Additionally, Motion No. 38 [Technical difficulty—Editor] into effect during the life of the current Parliament, which means we cannot be certain which party will be in power and which ones will be in opposition, the placing of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance between ourselves and the answer to the question: Who will be in a position to populate this committee, and will the governing party have a majority on the committee or only a minority? The Rawlsian veil of ignorance that exists helps to ensure that this change to the Standing Orders does [Technical difficulty—Editor] predictably shift power in one direction or another.

For this reason, I state confidently that I support Motion No. 38, and also that my commitment remains to the emerging convention of all-party consensus with regard to any changes that would have the potential [Technical difficulty—Editor] power relations between the government—