Debates of April 27th, 2021

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his always fair and nuanced position on how he approaches issues such as this. I wanted to mention something that he raised, which is the fact that a very significant percentage of work in the port relates to the Midwest of the United States. The port has already seen a 19% decline in goods that were originally ordered by customers in the American Midwest. If we do not see a final resolution, not a temporary one, but a final resolution to this uncertainty, it is highly likely that we will continue to see an erosion of the business the port does with the United States.

Is this a concern for the hon. member? How does he recommend we address that?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with the member on the special committee on the U.S.-Canadian economic relationship. He mentions that this issue is having an impact on our economic bottom line.

The real danger here is that, with a couple of work stoppages in such a short period of time, questions about the long-term reliability of the port are obviously raised. We cannot make a decision about shipping the weekend before something arrives at a port. The decisions have to be made a long time in advance. The uncertainty has caused a number of companies to make decisions to move away from the Port of Montreal, and to move away from the economic activity coming into that port and coming into Canada. We cannot afford for the temporary redirection to U.S. ports to become permanent. That is why we are supporting the effort to get certainty here because the long-term economic damage would be too great.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope. He stated that he supports the bargaining process, but I would like to know if he accepts the mediation process.

The Canada Labour Code already has a provision that would have allowed the government to impose mediation without resorting to special legislation. Does my colleague approve of that existing provision of the Canada Labour Code?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government should have used all the tools in its toolbox before coming to back-to-work legislation. It is obviously the hammer in that toolbox, and it is a tool that governments should be very hesitant to use.

As I have said numerous times, whether the government's intentions were good, whether it sat in on a number of meetings or not, the fact of the matter is that it did not get the job done. They have not yet reached a negotiated settlement. In fact, we are being told that in the last number of days, as the pressure has been released because of the threat of this back-to-work legislation, the prospects of a negotiated settlement have done nothing but decline. It is very unfortunate that the government failed to facilitate a negotiated settlement in this case.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say that they support labour and union workers. If that is the case, I know that they will agree that a fundamental tenet of labour rights is free collective bargain. Back-to-work legislation tips the scale, as the member acknowledged, for the employer, and essentially robs the union of any chance of free collective bargaining in a fair way.

We still have a chance to do this. What it takes is for the Conservatives to vote against this back-to-work legislation motion and send a clear signal to the employers, so they know they need to get back to the table to negotiate fairly with the union. We also need to send the government back to do its work without wielding the hammer.

Will the Conservatives vote against this motion?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that this is truly unfortunate.

I would say again that telegraphing that this was coming has prevented the negotiation from occurring under pressure. That is often when deals get done, when both sides realize that the time has run out and it is time to get down to brass tacks. The minister released the pressure valve, which is unfortunate.

For a number of companies, in Quebec especially, there are no other options. The Port of Montreal is the only option they have to ship their products around the world. They have already been hammered by the pandemic. We simply cannot allow those companies to be negatively impacted long term because of the situation at the port, which is why we will be reluctantly supporting this motion.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

Before I start, I would like to apologize to the interpreters because I will not be reading a text. I know that they like to have a copy of our speaking notes, and I understand why. I will try not to speak too quickly.

I want to start by paying tribute to all workers because tomorrow, April 28, is the National Day of Mourning for those killed or injured on the job. It is an opportunity to remember that we must work together to ensure that workplaces are healthy and safe. This includes harmonious labour relations and good living and working conditions for workers.

Today is a dark day. It is sunny outside, but it is a dark day in the House when the government introduces special legislation to end negotiations and deprive workers of any means of action. No, it is not the last resort or the only option, and no, it is not inevitable. It would have been possible to take another course of action.

I am not going to spend 10 minutes going over all of the International Labour Organization conventions that Canada has signed, but I do want to point out one thing. The Port of Montreal workers and the employer are trying to renew a contract that expired nearly two years ago. This process requires free collective bargaining, a balance of power and the ability to take action, such as a strike.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada constitutionalized the right to strike in a precedent-setting case involving health care, highway and other public sector workers in Saskatchewan. I will not read out the entire ruling, because that would take me until midnight, but the Supreme Court found that without the right to strike, the right to bargain collectively is meaningless. The court concluded that a prohibition on designated employees participating in strike action as part of the bargaining process amounts to a substantial interference with collective bargaining. Therefore, the right to strike is constitutionally protected.

The special legislation before us denies two fundamental rights: the right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike.

We are being asked to act urgently because action is urgently needed and there is no other choice. That is not true. There were plenty of signals during negotiations that should have alerted the department of labour, the government and the Prime Minister himself that this labour dispute would not be easily resolved.

The government cannot simply send in the best, most experienced mediators for 100 days, read their reports, and then decide that the negotiations are not going anywhere and that it will do nothing. Doing nothing is not an answer.

The latest signal came on April 9 when the employer sent a notice regarding job security and then changed work schedules a few days later. Those facts alone helped escalate the dispute.

Workers took job action, first with an overtime strike and then with a weekend strike before moving on to an unlimited general strike.

Not just one but four times in one week, the union stated publicly for all to hear that, if the employer were to walk back these two changes, which were a violation of the collective agreement, the union members would cease all job action. That was a strong signal. Did the employer just not hear them? Why did the employer not take action and try to strike a balance in order to pursue mediation?

That is not what happened though. The threat of special legislation has been looming for about a month now.

How could free collective bargaining and a balance of power prevail when everyone knew the government would hand the employer special legislation on a silver platter before workers even staged an unlimited general strike, which is the most useful pressure tactic?

I want to make it clear that workers are never happy about getting to that point in a dispute.

This government could have shown leadership. When we look closely at what is happening with the labour dispute, we see that there were other signals. As I was saying during question period, there was a strike last August. Economic and labour force stakeholders were already sending signals that the government needed to do something to help the parties reach a negotiated collective agreement. They were worried about what had happened and the impact that those strike days would have.

At that point, the government could have thought about what conditions it should implement besides special mediators. When disputes start to escalate and it seems that no agreement will be reached, the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister should at least show an interest in what is happening. They should at least make some calls, offer to listen to both parties and try to find ways to help bridge the gap between them. I will not talk here about the basics of good bargaining with good governance, but the government has let this labour relations issue go on for too long.

I would also remind the House that the parties have been negotiating for two and a half years, or 30 months to be exact. This is turning into a farce. In the first year of negotiations, the employer itself took the union to court to try to take away its right to strike. The employer lost, because the Supreme Court upheld the union's right to strike.

The bill before us negates that. The first clause of the bill extends the term of the collective agreement to include the period beginning in January. However, this does not guarantee that the union will be go back to work based on the agreement. Considering what has happened in the last few weeks, this would be like going back to work with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

A mediator-arbitrator will have the powers and duties to select the terms of the collective agreement, depending on the final offer. We see this as another right being violated.

For all these reasons, we cannot support the special legislation before us. Instead, every possible effort must be made to ensure genuine negotiations, in order to remove this sword of Damocles from above the workers' heads. The government has a duty to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her speech.

On the matter of defending workers' rights, we are on the same wavelength.

In her view, what is the meaning of the Liberal government's abusive and systematic use of special legislation that tips the scales at the negotiating table and always favours management?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that if we look at the history of labour relations in Canada there may be more special legislation than negotiated settlements. Just look at the special legislation the Harper government used to force Canada Post employees back to work.

Even though we cannot interfere in negotiations, we must take action as parliamentarians when there is a dispute and the economic or social situation is difficult. We have to put ourselves in dispute resolution mode instead of waiting and saying that it is impossible, that there are no other options.

The minister was saying that drugs will not get delivered. That is not true and it ignores the facts, because essential services are still being provided. All medical equipment and supplies are being handled.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her eloquent and heartfelt speech. We can see that she knows what she is talking about, thanks to her experience working for many labour organizations.

She criticized the government's complacency and lack of leadership with respect to measures that could have been taken in the past. Could she tell us what should be done now to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control, even though a special bill has been introduced? What solutions would she propose to the government to help prevent other special bills from being introduced in the future?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not go back to what has been happening in recent months, but we could see, just in recent weeks, that the government could have taken action to prevent this situation. We said it and others are repeating it. The government could have made a call. There were things it could have done.

No one is denying the importance of the Port of Montreal's economic activity and positioning. The Port of Montreal is an asset. It is an important port. No one is denying that. However, turning a deaf ear when one of the parties threatens to leave the negotiating table shows a lack of leadership.

I think that, in future negotiations, it is important that the government not ignore these signs, that it not wait until a line has been drawn and there is a crisis to manage. Instead, the government needs to anticipate disputes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to repeat what my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville said, and that is that drugs and other COVID-19-related items are still being unloaded at the Port of Montreal, which means that the strike does not pose a threat to the health and safety of the public. It is important to remind people of that because there is a lot of misinformation circulating in that regard, and unfortunately, the Liberal minister is partly responsible for that.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

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

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville gave an excellent speech.

I think that we all need to learn from her compelling experience in organized labour, and the government would do well to listen to people like her.

The situation we are in right now is a little unusual. The strike at the Port of Montreal was not unexpected, since this labour dispute has been going on for months. Some time ago, there was an agreement to proceed with negotiations without a lockout or a strike. The government even appointed mediators.

Everything had been going well. There was even some hope that this dispute could be resolved. However, as the months passed, it became clear that things were not looking quite so rosy. Newspapers have reported that the employer unilaterally decided to change shift schedules. The union took that move as a sign of disrespect during the negotiating process. Tensions escalated, and workers started floating the idea of going on strike.

There were snubs from both sides throughout the months, yet the government was nowhere to be seen. Its only contribution was to say that it was thinking of introducing special legislation. It missed the point. The Liberals are constantly boasting about defending workers' rights and repealing some of the laws passed by the Harper government. There may be some truth to what they say, but, at the end of the day, it is just like everything else. The Liberals talk about climate change, but they keep subsidizing oil companies. What is more, they are not doing a thing to address the issue of tax havens.

I will get back to the Port of Montreal, but it is still interesting to see that, in the end, it is the same story with workers' rights.

The same thing happened with Aveos workers. Air Canada violated both the terms of the contract and the law when it shut down the aircraft maintenance centre in Montreal. The Liberal Party promised Aveos workers it would support them. What did it do once it came to power? It amended the act in such a way that Air Canada did not have to respect workers. Clearly, the Liberals can be counted on to say one thing and do the opposite.

The urgent matter here is not the Liberals. The urgent matter is finding a solution so the Port of Montreal can keep operating. We know there is a problem. In a perfect world, a work stoppage at the port should not have an impact on Quebec's economy. This is serious. The employer should not be allowed to rest on its laurels because of this special legislation. It should not be allowed to avoid negotiating because it is going to get special legislation that will give it everything it wants. That is not how it works, but the Liberals seem to think that is how it works.

When the Liberals talk, they almost sound like the NDP. When they act, however, they are more like the Conservatives. It is a little hard to figure out how they think. The fact is, we are always disappointed, and that is a shame.

There was a truce that lasted several months, so the government had time to see what was coming, and yet it did absolutely nothing.

I myself have had discussions with the Port of Montreal. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville has had discussions with the union. What has the government done? When did the Minister of Labour talk to them? When did the Prime Minister talk to them? For them, the solution is simple. They just wash their hands of it, since special legislation will make sure there is not a single day of strike action. I have to say, that is weak. Everyone agrees that a negotiated agreement is better than one imposed by special legislation. Imposing special legislation is like dictating to them how things are going to go and telling them to just suck it up.

I am trying to imagine how the workers will feel the day after this vote, when working conditions are imposed on them. Do members think those workers will feel like going back to work? Do members think the workers will be happy about the situation? Do they think that the Port of Montreal is going to come out the winner in the end?

The way I see it, if workers do not feel like going to work because they do not feel appreciated or respected, then there is a good chance that they will be going in reluctantly and will not be as productive. Generally, after a labour dispute and difficult negotiations, and especially after being told by the government to suck it up, workers may need time to calm down. The situation needs to be defused. The parties need to find a way to open a dialogue and work together. It is impossible to do that when one side is saying that it has all the power and the other has none. The government has a strange way of looking at things.

I am also surprised that the government is using the strike argument. It is saying that avoiding a strike is crucial. If workers go on strike, it is the end of the world.

There is no hiding the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, there will clearly be economic repercussions that no one wants. The Port of Montreal, the maritime employers that employ the workers, and business people have all said that the port must not be shut down. The workers never said that they wanted the port to shut down. They said that there would not be a strike if the new shift schedules that were unilaterally imposed during negotiations were rescinded.

It makes me wonder. I am not in the shoes of the port workers or the administrators. However, I imagine that if there were no special legislation, I would ask myself if I wanted to shut down my port. I could lose customers if the port shut down, and Quebec would not be in happy. If the government said that it would not pass special legislation, perhaps I would sit down, negotiate and try to keep the port open because I want goods to keep moving. Perhaps that is what would have happened. Perhaps the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour could have picked up the phone, called the port representatives, the maritime employers and the union members and asked them if there was any way to lower the temperature a little, cool off, step back and for each party to give a little. Instead, the government is siding against the workers, and that is unacceptable. I hope that the workers will remember this.

This has happened before. The government has let conflicts escalate. It never seems able to take action or be proactive when issues arise. The conflict with the Wet'suwet'en went on for months, and the government was not even able to speak to them. It did not want to. The Wet'suwet'en were blocking rail lines all over the place, but the federal government claimed it was a provincial jurisdiction and that it did not want to get involved. It was mind-boggling.

The same thing happened during the CN strike. It took a propane shortage during that labour dispute for the government to wake up and realize that it should maybe facilitate dialogue. It is frustrating when a government does not have its act together and simply gives up. A government's job is to govern, not to constantly impose decisions or take sides. The government's job is to help improve these situations. That takes dialogue and a little moral authority, not just the government's usual heavy-handed approach.

Today, the Liberals have tabled special legislation, after waiting until negotiations hit a wall. I think that, although we are disappointed, it is not too late. I think the government could still change its mind. It still has a chance to recover its sanity and realize that if we really want a balanced society, that happens through free collective bargaining. A balanced society can only be achieved through dialogue, not through imposing work conditions or through a government taking sides. We need a government that can bring some common sense to all this. That is what I am asking of the government going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. There is a lot we agree on.

Why does he think the Conservative and Liberal governments, which are one and the same on this issue, systematically use special legislation, back-to-work legislation, that dashes workers' hopes of having their rights respected and having truly free collective bargaining?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It is clear that for the Conservatives, it is all about leaving it up to the market. The market is not so great when it comes to free collective bargaining. Then it becomes about leaving it up to management.

The Liberal Party engages in doublespeak. When it is time for action, it may have other interests. I do not know who is funding the Liberal Party, and I am not saying that it is the maritime employers, but it is disappointing to see that the government's real actions never really favour the workers.

This government always says it relies on the decisions of the courts. It loves the Supreme Court in particular. Perhaps the government needs to be reminded that it lost before the court when it was told that workers, specifically those at the Port of Montreal, had the right to free collective bargaining. Watching the government immediately do the opposite is hard to swallow.

[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, I sense that the member wants to see the issue become more politicized, as he makes reference to the Liberal Party. Why does he speculate about New Democratic governments at the provincial level and other parties at the provincial level? I am not 100% clear on this, and maybe the member could let me know what the current Premier of Quebec thinks. Why would they support back-to-work legislation?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the Government of Quebec. He also mentioned some others, but I do not know as much about what is going on in the other provinces. I live in Quebec, I would like Quebec to be its own country, and I focus my attention on Quebec.

The member is picking and choosing the words that suit his purpose and focusing on those. Perhaps he did not listen to everything the Government of Quebec said. It actually also said that the best solution was a negotiated one.

No one is against that, so I do not understand why the government did not do everything in its power to reach a negotiated solution before introducing special legislation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

In the previous Parliament, when the same party was in power, Canada Post employees went on strike. That strike, too, ended with special legislation.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague reminded us about that. As the member for Thérèse-De Blainville pointed out in her speech earlier on, in Canada's recent history, more labour disputes seem to have been dealt with through special legislation than through negotiation.

In recent years, the government has been either Liberal or Conservative. That is disappointing because workers' rights have been trampled on every time.

Why say that workers have the right to bargain freely if that right is going to be violated anyway?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, Carbon Pricing; and the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, National Defence.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I want to explain the crisis at the Port of Montreal in clear and simple terms. The workers at the Port of Montreal want a collective agreement. That is their right, just as they have the right to negotiate that agreement freely. The Liberal government wants to prevent them from negotiating freely by introducing legislation that will force them back to work. That is the situation, explained in simple terms.

Workers have a right. It is a fundamental and essential right that allows them to do their jobs. It is essential that we support them and that we support their right to bargain freely. When the Liberal government, or any other government, prevents these negotiations from taking place, it hurts workers and violates their rights. To create a just society, we must support the process and support free negotiations.

What the government is proposing is exactly what former Conservative governments did. It is exactly what this government did with Canada Post workers. We clearly see once again that the Liberal government and the Prime Minister do not stand up for workers' interests. The decision to introduce back-to-work legislation is unfair and wrong and will harm society in general.

The Liberals have shown once again that they are no different than the Conservatives and that they are turning their backs on workers to the benefit of businesses. The government will say that is not true, that there is now a crisis and that if workers fight for their rights, that will negatively affect the rest of society.

However, the workers at the Port of Montreal want to defend their working conditions, not hurt our society. The spokesperson for local 375 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, stated, “We don't want to hurt the Montreal economy. However, we do want to exercise our fundamental right to bargain collectively.”

The national president of CUPE wrote to the Prime Minister to tell him that it is impossible to negotiate fairly and in good faith under the threat of back-to-work legislation since such legislation completely destabilizes the balance of power between the parties. The legislation that we are debating will completely destabilize the balance of power between the parties.

Workers are prepared to negotiate. The Liberals need to withdraw their back-to-work legislation and let workers defend their rights at the negotiating table. We are once again asking the government not to intervene and to let the parties freely negotiate in order to come to a better agreement. I repeat: It is their right to do so. It is only through bargaining that employees will be able to obtain safer and fairer working conditions.

What is going is very clear. Workers at the Port of Montreal want to negotiate a collective agreement. That is their right. They should be able to do that freely. The Liberals, the government and the Prime Minister are undermining their ability to freely negotiate. They are undermining the fundamental rights of workers to negotiate their collective agreement. This is absolutely wrong.

Forcing these workers back to work when they are in the midst of a negotiation would completely upset the negotiations. It completely undermines the process. It takes away the rights of the workers to fight for their basic rights. It is the wrong thing to do. It is obviously going to mean that the employer is not going to want to negotiate fairly when an announcement is made that there is going to be back-to-work legislation. What is the motivation for the employer to negotiate in good faith now? It is the wrong thing to do.

Workers at the Port of Montreal have been very clear that they do not want to hurt the economy; they just want to negotiate a fair deal. The national president of CUPE wrote to the Prime Minister and made it clear that by putting forward this legislation, it would directly undermine the negotiation and negatively impact the workers' ability to get a fair deal. The workers are ready to negotiate; they are negotiating right now,

The Liberals must withdraw this legislation. It is the wrong thing to do and it does not help anyone. In fact, the only way there are good conditions for all of Canada when it comes to the work done at ports is when the workers are respected, when they are given the dignity to have the ability to collectively negotiate and when there are free and fair collective agreements. When there are free and fair collective agreements and workers are respected and able to do their jobs, all of Canada benefits.

When workers are undermined and disrespected, it will hurt not just the process and the workers but everyone. It is not a good condition for work when workers are being disrespected like this.

Obviously, the New Democrats are opposed to this and are calling on the government and the Prime Minister to immediately withdraw the legislation.

Time and time again, the Liberals say they are the friends of workers. They are doing exactly what the Conservative Party would have done by bringing in back-to-work legislation so early in the negotiation process. It is so wrong to do, and is always wrong to do, but it is particular heinous when they are in the midst of negotiations.

I again want to be clear. We are asking the Liberal government and the Prime Minister not to intervene in the workers' ability to negotiate and work toward a collective agreement. That is their right and it should be defended and protected.

We know that when workers are able to freely negotiate their contracts and agreements, they are able to ensure that good protections, good work hours and safety are in place. We want to be leaders in ensuring that we set the precedent that at the federal level, workers are supported and protected and not being forced back to work. The New Democrats again call on the government to withdraw the legislation, to stop its undermining of workers and, instead, to stand up for workers and protect their rights. These are difficult times and in difficult times, we expect the government to stand with workers.

We have seen the Liberal government again and again side with large corporations. It said no to taxing the ultra-rich, it said no to taxing web giants, it said no to removing profit from long-term care, it said no to changing Revera, the second-largest long-term care home provider in Canada, from a for-profit company and making it public. It continues to show a pattern of behaviour. It said no to universal pharmacare, which, again, it stood up for big pharma. There has again and again been a pattern of behaviour where the Liberal government continues to defend the rights and interests of large and powerful corporations over the interests of people and workers.

Enough is enough. The government should withdraw the legislation and let the workers negotiate. They will able to obtain a good contract that is in the best interests of workers and in the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the labour dispute at the Port of Montreal, there is now a general strike. Is there any duration of a general strike at the port that the hon. member believes would require the government to intervene with back-to-work legislation? Hypothetically, let us say, for example, the strike lasted for a month. Is there any length of time in any strike that the hon. member believes the government should intervene in this way?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is this. What the Liberal government is doing right now will directly undermine the ability of the workers, who have just started to fight for their rights and are in the midst of negotiations. Why would an employer negotiate with workers when the government has already signalled that it will bring in back-to-work legislation? It undermines the process, it undermines the rights of workers and it is the wrong thing to do.

We always need to find ways to support the process, support workers and their ability to come to a collective agreement, and to be able to negotiate freely. The role of the government is to support and encourage the resolution of these disputes through the process. The government should be supporting the process and workers, not by undermining it, which is exactly what the Liberal government is doing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question. One of the things we are seeing is that this is basically a shortcut. The easy decision right now to use a sledgehammer approach. However, what would be more profitable for business and for a long-term relationship would be to work together to find a solution and an agreement that both sides will respect. It even could be a longer agreement.

In the past, we have seen these forced negotiations lead to animosity. I would ask our leader, who is a lawyer, to talk about how when two parties come together and find a workable solution, despite how difficult it can be at the moment, that long-term relationship is enhanced versus undermined.