Debates of April 28th, 2021

Canada Labour Code

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in the House today to speak about Bill C-254, introduced by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. At the same time, I am surprised that we are talking about it here, in the House, because Bill 101 is a Quebec provincial law.

That said, it is still commendable for wanting to ensure the federal government does not interfere in provincial jurisdiction, especially since, only a few moments ago, we heard the Liberal member try to use any means possible to divert the debate toward the modernization of the two official languages. In fact, that is another extremely important subject that the Liberal government should concentrate on to deliver the bill that we have been awaiting for many years.

Let us get back to the substance of Bill C-254. Its main purpose is essentially to ensure that the federal government does not interfere or contest Quebec's objective of protecting and promoting the French language. Indeed, as it has been so aptly said, Quebec is the only place in America where French is the primary language. Quebec is a francophone province, while New Brunswick is bilingual and the other provinces in Canada are English-speaking, as is every U.S. state.

The Government of Quebec's desire and goal to protect and promote French are commendable and legitimate because, unlike what some may think, French is in decline in Quebec. It is true that there are francophone communities across Canada and that we need to protect and help them. That is set out in the Canadian Constitution and is part of the federal government's role. Quebec, on the other hand, needs to work to promote and protect the French language and make sure that all the conditions are in place so that every individual, family and worker can live a full life in French in Quebec. I applaud my colleague's initiative in that sense.

However, I will repeat that, although we are discussing it here in the Parliament of Canada, this issue falls under provincial jurisdiction, and it is part of the Conservative Party's DNA to not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is why our leader wasted no time in telling Premier François Legault that a Conservative government will work with Quebec and help it implement administrative measures, but that there will be no challenges from us.

We support this initiative. We encourage it and commend Quebec for making such a great effort to protect and promote the French fact and to make sure that workers are able to work in French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec.

My colleague gave a very good example. If there are 10 francophones and one anglophone in a room, everyone will accommodate the anglophone. We know very well that this type of thing would not happen elsewhere.

I would like to respond to a concern the NDP will raise as a reason for not supporting such a bill. The NDP will cite fears that people in other English-speaking provinces will use it as another excuse to attack Quebec. It reminds me of childish taunts like “my dad is stronger than yours” or “whatever you do to me, I will do right back to you”. If someone jumps off a cliff, should I follow, like a sheep? I do not believe that. Why not?

First, it is because people are smart. It is natural to want to defend one's language, and people will not sink to that level. Second, it is because there is a country, Canada, that has two official languages and has a law called the Official Languages Act, and we have been waiting for years for it to be modernized.

Consultations were held by the Senate, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and the Commissioner of Official Languages. All the francophone advocacy groups in the country have been consulted and have submitted their recommendations. We all expected a bill before the holidays.

In a surprise move, our Minister of Official Languages decided to water it down and instead tabled a white paper, a consultation document. Our Liberal colleague doubled down on this earlier by trying to shift the debate, saying that we should look at this as part of the big picture of the Official Languages Act.

I disagree. Bill 101 is a provincial statute, and Quebec is responsible for promoting and protecting French. That is the essence of the bill introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague because this is Quebec's responsibility.

For people who are into numbers, this would affect about 200,000 workers in Quebec. Nearly half of the private, federally regulated businesses in Quebec already have administrative agreements and respect Bill 101 or have made appropriate arrangements. I think Quebec wants to send a strong signal about the importance of French and is working hard to do that. We should all be very proud of that.

Our country is blessed with a francophone province, Quebec; a bilingual province, New Brunswick, with its many francophone Acadian communities; and francophone communities in Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario. They all champion this wonderful language and are trying to make things better for people all across the country.

I invite the Liberal government to show some courage and clearly state that it supports Quebec in this initiative. Let it stop using all sorts of speeches to deflect the issue. I invite the NDP to do the same, to clearly state that it agrees with Quebec applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. I could write down what I just said and send it to the NDP so that it can make an official statement. That would solve the problem once and for all.

Then we would not be forced to debate the issue this evening because, I repeat, it is a provincial jurisdiction. We must respect the Quebec government, which was legitimately elected by its own people. Federal MPs from Quebec, whether Liberal, Bloc, NDP or Conservative, were all elected by those very same people, whose choices deserve respect.

Conservatives agree that Bill 101 should apply to federally regulated businesses. We think that the Canadian Parliament should not put up obstacles in Quebec, or any other province that wants to implement legislation in their jurisdiction. We should instead be proud of these provinces and encourage them. We should be their partner.

I urge the Liberal government and the Minister of Official Languages to introduce a binding bill on official languages that acknowledges the challenges faced by francophones living in Quebec, since these challenges are not exclusive to francophones outside of Quebec.

The Minister of Official Languages will not stop promoting the white paper she presented early this year. However, her government's budget does not allocate a single cent to help francophones in Quebec. The Liberal government claims to be proud of francophones in Quebec. It claims to be proud of having almost 40 MPs from Quebec, 10 of whom are ministers.

I am not going to get into the WE Charity scandal, in which the Liberals awarded an untendered contract to an organization that could not process French applications. I will also not get into the COVID-19 tests for foreign workers, which are being administered by a Toronto company that is unable to provide services in French in Quebec. The Minister of Labour was so proud to announce this week that this issue would be fixed as of April 28.

This pandemic has been going on for over a year. The Liberal government needs to get moving and implement its powerful Official Languages Act for all francophones across the country, and it needs to let Quebec enforce Bill 101 in federally regulated businesses. That is all we are asking for. We want it to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who spoke this evening, and I especially want to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, for introducing Bill C-254.

This bill is very similar to others that the NDP supported in 2007, 2009 and 2011. We introduced two similar bills ourselves. I will get to that later.

We may not agree on the process or way of doing things, but we do agree on the objective, which is fundamental for any francophone in Quebec and North America. We need provisions that not only guarantee equality and equal rights, but that also ensure that the resources required to protect and defend French are allocated.

Let me remind the House that, outside Quebec, French is definitely a minority compared to the U.S. cultural behemoth, which I might even call U.S. cultural imperialism. We see this more and more with social media and the new digital platforms that are invading our lives, entering our homes and invading the lives of our children and teens. We must work together to move forward and ensure that French will be defended and not just survive, but thrive and continue to enrich our lives.

I say this in light of the many debates in Quebec about living together in harmony. We use a variety of terms and definitions. Recently, I spoke in the House about the concept of interculturalism, which is part of the NDP's statutes and bylaws. We recognize that it is a way of expressing the concept of living together in harmony that is unique to Quebec and on which everyone agrees. I remember the words of Gérard Bouchard, the well-known historian, who wrote a great book about interculturalism. He said that it contained some fundamental elements, like the idea of a common foundation. In this common foundation, there is equality between men and women. This equality applies to all citizens, male and female, regardless of the colour of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, or whether they have been here for two years or 200 years.

Then there is democracy. We have a government elected by citizens. That is a part of our fundamental values. We have representative, democratic parliamentary institutions, we have freedom of expression during election campaigns, and we have the ability to form political parties.

The third part of this common foundation is the French language as the customary language, the common language, the public language and the language of work. That brings us to the crux of the issue. I believe we have a chance to solve a problem that has been dragging on for far too long.

I think that our love and affection for the French language and our desire to preserve it were recently expressed in the House. I moved a motion to recognize the fragility and decline of the French language in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, and it was unanimously adopted by all 338 parliamentarians, including the members from all of the political parties represented here and the independent members.

We took a strong stand on this in the past, foreshadowing what we would do in the future. In 2005, the NDP adopted the Sherbrooke declaration. I will not read it in its entirety because it is dozens of pages long, but here is an excerpt: “The national character of Québec is based primarily...on: 1. a primarily Francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language”. That was a fundamental value for us, and we voted accordingly five times, on three Bloc Québécois bills and two NDP bills.

Here is why it is so important. Earlier, our Conservative Party colleague gave some statistics about the number of Quebeckers working in federally regulated businesses. We are talking about big banks, telecommunications companies, airlines and shipping companies, among others. We could bicker about the statistics, but a large percentage of them already apply the spirit, if not the letter, of the Charter of the French Language. What we want to avoid is inequity when it comes to the language rights of workers.

Right now, there is a two-tier system where most Quebeckers are covered by the Charter of the French Language, but about 10% of the workforce is not, because it is not recognized.

The NDP protects and promotes the French language throughout Quebec and across the rest of Canada in francophone minority communities.

However, we also stand up for the rights of workers. Our political party was founded largely by the union movement and the labour movement, so working conditions and workers' rights are very important to us.

There is a bizarre situation that has existed for several years. Employees of Caisses Desjardins have the right to work in French and to communicate with their employer in French. Of course, that would not normally be a problem. However, people who work for the big Canadian banks do not enjoy the same rights and are not entitled to the same protections. A manager, assistant manager, department, new employer or new boss at a bank could suddenly decide to send their emails in English and hold their meetings in English. If that happened, it would be hard for employees to assert their rights because the Charter of the French Language does not apply to their employer and they have no recourse under the Official Languages Act or the Canada Labour Code.

The NDP has chosen to take a slightly different approach to this. Our desire to stand up for the French language stems from the right of all workers to have similar access, recourse and defences.

This bill could give rise to a problem. I heard my colleague from the Conservative Party say earlier that we should not be afraid because it would probably not happen, but if provincial language laws are allowed to take precedence over the Official Languages Act, there could be cases where the language rights of francophones outside Quebec are violated. I mentioned this concern earlier when I asked a question, and it has been raised by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. Obviously, that is not what we want to happen.

It might be much simpler and safer for the Canada Labour Code to give Quebec workers the same protections laid out in Quebec's Charter of the French Language without compromising the potential recourse available under the Official Languages Act to minority francophones.

As the member for Beauport—Limoilou said, it would be despicable to use a debate on this issue to make things worse for minority francophones. I share her concern, and I would be just as angry if that happened, so I would like us to be prudent as we seek to achieve the greatest possible benefit while minimizing unintended consequences and negative outcomes.

Getting back to the issue of protecting French, I am coming up on 10 years as an MP, and I want to remind the House that, in recent years, the NDP has fought for greater recognition and protection for French. I talked about the motion that was unanimously adopted a few months ago.

I also want to remind everyone that the NDP introduced a bill requiring all officers of Parliament to be bilingual. That bill was passed. Officers of Parliament include the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General. That progress came about thanks to the NDP's initiative.

For years we have been calling for Supreme Court justices to be bilingual, to be able to understand and speak French. We believe it is part of the fundamental right to defence. In a country that has two official languages, judges on the highest court of the land should be able to understand us.

It is odd that when it comes to protecting francophone workers in federally regulated businesses, Supreme Court justices and the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it seems like the Liberals have just woken up after a 10-year nap, just in time for an election. My guess is that this might be a political calculation. The Liberals have been in power for nearly seven years. They started off with a majority government, and now they have a minority government. Despite their promise to introduce legislation to modernize the Official Languages Act, the Liberals have done nothing more than present a working document that will result in more consultations. The government just completely changed its position on the rights of francophones working in federally regulated businesses and on having bilingual justices on the Supreme Court.

We have to be cautious. Let us judge the Liberal government on its actions and on the way it votes on various bills. Let us see what it will do to save Laurentian University and the University of Sudbury in order to uphold the rights of francophones in northern Ontario.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for introducing this bill, which would make federally regulated businesses subject to Bill 101. This is the fourth time this type of bill has been introduced in the House.

I want to start by saying that the principles of the Official Languages Act are at odds with those of Quebec's Charter of the French Language. The purpose of the charter is to make French the common language in the workplace. French must not only be the primary language of work, but it must also be used when people who speak different languages have to communicate with each other. In the rest of Canada, English is used in these cases.

Almost all authorities recognize that the two language planning models are in opposition. Studies of such models around the world show that systems based on institutional bilingualism and individual rights—as is the case with the federal government's linguistic policy, the Official Languages Act—invariably lead to the assimilation of the minority languages.

Most countries operate in one common language, the official language. Places where there are a number of national languages and where we do not see the assimilation of minority languages are places where the language management approach is based on collective territorial rights. That is the case in Belgium, Switzerland and many other countries. In a given territory, the official language is the common language, the language of public institutions. However, that does not prevent people from learning any number of second languages and getting by quite well.

As soon as the Official Languages Act was implemented, we saw an increased rate of francophone assimilation and language transfer toward English, which grew with every census.

Outside of Quebec, approximately 40% of people whose mother tongue is French use English as their main language at home. That is also becoming increasingly common in Quebec.

Until just recently, the federal government denied that French was in decline. The Liberals were saying that everything was fine and that Canada is a model for the treatment of linguistic minorities. However, we are witnessing the decline of French everywhere, including in Quebec. We are pleased that the government finally admitted that in the throne speech. However, since the government did not provide any statistics, it is all still quite vague. The Minister of Official Languages presented a proposal for reform, but that is still just good intentions, just rhetoric.

The reality check was the Bloc Québécois's bill requiring knowledge of French to obtain citizenship. They opposed it. Now, they are preparing to vote against the application of Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses.

To date, in Quebec, the Official Languages Act has only served to promote and defend English, as evidenced by previous throne speeches. We know that programs based on the Official Languages Act, such as the development of official-language communities program, the enhancement of official languages program and the official languages health program, receive between $80 million and $100 million a year, paid for by federal taxes collected from Quebec. This only serves to strengthen the English language. One hundred per cent of amounts allocated to these programs only serve to strengthen the English language. That clearly does not help in any way.

The Government of Quebec has stated its expectations for the modernization of the Official Languages Act. The government is primarily asking that Quebec have sole authority over linguistic development and management in the province. It is also asking for recognition of the fact that, of the two official languages, French is the only one in a minority position across Canada. This implies full respect for the legislative authority and the specific responsibilities of Quebec with respect to language.

Our bill moves us in that direction. For example, we are asking to change the preamble of the Official Languages Act to recognize that French is the official language of Quebec and the common language in Quebec. We are also asking that the Government of Canada undertake not to obstruct the objectives of the French language, specifically positive measures, that the federal government spending that only serves to strengthen the English language be changed, and that all this be done with the approval of the Government of Quebec, and not on a unilateral basis.

Virtually none of this is present in what we have seen of the good intentions of the Minister of Official Languages. We need only to read all the proposals. The Liberal government is saying that it will amend the Official Languages Act instead so that federally regulated businesses afford a greater degree of respect to the French language.

On the one hand, as we speak, the Government of Quebec is preparing to strengthen Bill 101. That means that it is trailing behind the federal government with regard to these businesses. On the other hand, even within federal institutions, we can see that French is far from being the common language.

At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we heard from people from the Quebec office of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They explained that systemic and deep-rooted discrimination exists within the federal government and that, even in Quebec, their members sometimes struggled to be able to work in French.

A study by the Commissioner of Official Languages even found that 44% of francophones living in designated bilingual regions do not feel comfortable working in French. I have witnessed this first-hand. People working at transportation companies, which are not subject to Bill 101 but rather to the Official Languages Act, have reached out to me. They were unable to work in French, and were even given safety instructions in English.

André Dionne, a long-time employee of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, complained for 30 years that he could not work in French. Every time he needed to communicate with his team of investigators in Toronto, he was forced to do so in English. He took his case to court, but lost. He was told that the Official Languages Act did not apply to him because he was part of a majority.

The Official Languages Act is for so-called official language minorities. In Quebec, only anglophones are recognized as a minority. Even the UN does not recognize them as a minority because they are part of the English-Canadian majority.

The right to ensure the future and vitality of a language is a fundamental principle of the self-determination of peoples. This is really incredible. People sometimes tell me that it is because of the Constitution, but the 1982 Constitution was forced on Quebec. No Quebec premier signed it.

The government constantly promotes institutional bilingualism, and that shows no sign of changing. The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to, at the very least, stop hurting French in Quebec, but that has not happened. I strongly urge my fellow Quebeckers to take a good look at what is happening.

Bill C-254 would not fix everything, but it is a small step in the right direction. If even that small step is too much for the Liberals and they manage to block this bill, I think we can draw some conclusions from that. We will have to accept that it is impossible.

They say we are a majority. As long as Quebec is not a country, we are not a majority but a minority subordinate to the federal government. The federal government is using its spending power and its legal authority to impose English everywhere and make Quebec bilingual. That has to stop.

Right now, Bill C-254 just might pass because the opposition parties support it. We really have to do our best to rally and make sure everyone is here to vote and pass it. It would be [inaudible].

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today. I want to start by thanking my Conservative colleagues for sharing some time with me today. This is the first time I have ever shared time with a member from another party. I would not have had an opportunity to speak had they not extended that opportunity to me, so I greatly appreciate my colleagues across the way and the Conservative Party for doing that.

The government is acutely aware of the severe economic impact of the Port of Montreal work stoppage. The Port of Montreal is the second-largest container port in Canada. Every year, it handles over 1.6 million 20-foot equivalent units and 35 million tonnes of cargo, representing approximately $40 billion in goods. The port is critical to the economic well-being of Canadians across the country, particularly those in Quebec and Ontario.

We know that Canadians need a resolution as quickly as possible. That is why the government is introducing legislation to end, without further delay, the work stoppage at the Port of Montreal. The Syndicat des débardeurs, also known as CUPE Local 375, and the Maritime Employers Association, also known as MEA, have been negotiating the renewal of the collective agreement since September 2018.

Despite our government's repeated efforts to help the parties reach an agreement over the last two and a half years, they remain at a significant impasse. Considering this, along with the significant and potentially lasting economic harm this work shortage is inflicting on regional and national economies, our government has taken the decision to introduce back-to-work legislation. This was an extremely difficult decision, but we must act in the best interest of Canadians, who depend on activities at the port to run their businesses, keep their jobs and feed their families.

We are talking about a work stoppage at a port that is critical to the well-being of our economy and crucial to the continuity of supply chains. I will remind members of this House that supply chains have been disrupted for over a year now and industries are still working to recover from and manage these complexities. Ensuring the uninterrupted flow of commodities and goods through the Port of Montreal is essential to the economic well-being of Canadians across the country, particularly now, as we continue to deal with the impacts of a serious health and economic crisis.

Every day the work stoppage continues, the more likely it is that the shipping traffic will simply not return if more economical routes are found, resulting in long-lasting damage. That damage had a direct impact on so many workers and their families. Today, the work stoppage at the Port of Montreal is impeding the flow of 270 million dollars' worth of goods per week, harming the transportation industry in Quebec and imposing significant costs on Canadian businesses that use the port because of increased transportation costs and lost sales due to import and export delays. It is also affecting the livelihoods of approximately 19,000 Canadians whose jobs depend directly or indirectly on the Port of Montreal.

The consequences of this work stoppage will reach far and wide. For example, railways that normally operate on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis have already been impacted by the work stoppage. Eight container trains that were supposed to arrive during the first week of the work stoppage, on April 17 and April 18, were cancelled to avoid terminal congestion. To put that into perspective, that is the equivalent of 2,400 truck trips.

Even before the full work stoppage began, the partial work stoppage at the port had already generated truck congestion at CP's Vaughan terminal in Toronto with the accumulation of more than 1,000 containers. The railway is not accepting any more cargo destined for Montreal, leaving truckers to find warehousing space for their loads. Food production, both imported and intended for export, are the most commonly impacted containerized products and that food is spoiling.

Beyond the transportation and logistics industry, temporary layoffs or reduced hours can be expected to begin shortly in other sectors that are dependent on cargo transiting through the port. The Retail Council of Canada has been vocal about the impact that the August 2020 work stoppage had on its members, as well as its concerns with the continued disruption at the port. As the work stoppage continues, production in manufacturing and natural resource sectors, such as forestry, can also be expected to come to a halt, and temporary layoffs and reduced hours will emerge in those sectors as well.

The ripple effect will not end there. Other sectors of the economy dependent on cargo transiting through the Port of Montreal will find it increasingly difficult to access key production inputs, forcing industries such as construction and sales to reduce and/or shut down operations.

This can be seen in different ways. In August 2020, Produits forestiers Résolu noted that its main export route runs through the Port of Montreal, and that its products for exportation were immobilized entirely during the work stoppages. At the same time, les Serres Toundra was seeing its greenhouse construction timelines delayed due to containerized imported materials being drastically slowed down at the port.

Then there are the impacts of the long-term health and viability of the Port of Montreal, which stands to suffer irreparable reputational harm. Let me explain. Shippers forced to reroute to other ports because they are unable to do business at the Port of Montreal may find that it makes sense to maintain the alternative arrangements that they were forced into out of necessity. If that is the case, we might see permanent loss of business at the port, even when operations are back to normal.

As I have said, back-to-work legislation is the last resort and not something the government takes lightly. However, we also have an opportunity to protect the economy. The initial partial work stoppage reduced port capacity by approximately 30%, representing loss of cargo volumes worth an estimated $90 million per week.

The situation has recently deteriorated to a full work stoppage, which is now impeding the flow of $270 million per week in cargo through the port. This simply cannot continue. Canadians and Canadian businesses are counting on us. Rest assured, we will continue to support the parties through every means possible. We strongly encourage them to reach an agreement as soon as possible, but failing that, we simply cannot afford to have this work stoppage continue.

As I mentioned, the government has been assisting the parties over the last two and a half years in an effort to help them reach an agreement at the bargaining table. Despite that assistance, there is still no agreement in sight. The conflict has already had serious negative effects on businesses. In light of the recent escalation of job action, resulting in the full shutdown of the port, we can only expect those impacts to worsen dramatically if nothing changes.

Given this, we cannot afford to wait any longer. The many Canadians who depend on this port to earn a living cannot wait any longer. We need to act now.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. We really do not like having things forced on us.

That said, how many times did he call the union over the two years of discussions? The union is prepared to have longshoremen back to work by tomorrow morning if the employer agrees to stop dictating the shift schedules.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member knows that I do not have the specific details as to how many times the union was called.

If we go back to the minister's speech and the questions she answered during the 30-minute round, back and forth, she stressed on a number of occasions that her office, her department and she herself, personally, had been involved to get the process moving. They have been trying. They have been running into roadblocks, continually, on both sides.

Now is the time, reluctantly, that a decision has to be made to implement legislation to this effect, to ensure that we do not disrupt the flow of goods through the port any longer.

I have full faith in this minister. She indicated how passionate she is about labour. She is the daughter of a steelworker. She understands and values the right of labour to coordinate and to assemble through the union process. She feels that we have reached that point where we just need to do something that requires legislation. I stand with her in that regard.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my good friend from Kingston and the Islands that last year the Prime Minister made a statement on Labour Day, where he said, “thanks to the hard work and advocacy of unions, we’ve taken action to protect collective bargaining rights”.

Doing what we are doing today is forcing them back to work, so how can the government say it supports labour rights on the one hand, while working to suppress them on the other?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate. As the Prime Minister said, and I was not there but I will take the member's word on the quote, we do support labour and unions and their ability to assemble and unionize in order to properly protect themselves. At the same time, a government has multiple responsibilities. It also has responsibilities to Canadians who are dependent on getting medical supplies. It has responsibilities to Canadian businesses that are dependent on the flow of goods through this port.

Yes, if one tries to look at things in silos, one can try to make the argument the member is making, but when we start to look at things holistically and considering everything, it certainly changes the dynamic of it. Yes, it is possible to strongly advocate for and support unions but at the same time recognize that from time to time we do have to make exceptions to bring in legislation such as this, regrettably, in order to protect other Canadians and other businesses through the process.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to refocus the debate.

I am sick of hearing that the Minister of Labour is the daughter of a steelworker. I have heard that four times today. My father was a worker, too. To me, this sounds like someone who wants to appear important and smart or appear as though they have a connection to this issue because their grandfather had a farm. That is not relevant, though.

Take a look at the situation. This government did nothing and we are now about to vote on special back-to-work legislation, all of which is slower than if the government had gone with the solution proposed by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who showed some leadership today.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why the government is not considering that solution. Are they too embarrassed because the solution was suggested by the Bloc Québécois? Why is it?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the member is tired of hearing about it, but it does not change the fact that it is reality. It is quite germane to the discussion to bring up the fact that the minister is the daughter, not the granddaughter but the daughter, of somebody who was heavily involved in organized labour.

We are influenced by our parents quite dramatically and I believe that, through the influence of her father, our minister had imposed upon her the importance of unions having the right to organize and properly represent the employees. Therefore, she has done a tremendous job in trying to advocate for a resolution to this through the bargaining process, through the negotiating process, but regrettably has come to the conclusion that there are other factors that weigh into this that she has to consider at the same time, which she has done and which has informed her to get to this conclusion.

[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 would like to address some of the issues that have been raised. I really appreciate the Minister of Labour providing great insights as to why we have the legislation before us, as well as the previous speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands, who provided excellent background with respect to why the legislation is before us.

Before I get into some of that, I want to pick up on a couple of the questions that were posed to my colleague, because I think it is important to really emphasize some issues that I have fundamental values with. One of those is with respect to collective bargaining and the process involved.

The idea of free collective bargaining is something that is not new to me. In fact, I have said so in the past. I have been a parliamentarian for about 30 years. I was first elected back in 1988 at the provincial level. Maybe a bit later in my speech I will get a bit more into one of my very first labour issues, which took hours of debate, sitting at committee almost around the clock dealing with final offer selection. I am very much aware of it. I am a member of Parliament who comes from the north end of Winnipeg. We remember the general strike of 1919. I understand the valuable role unions have played in the past, play today and will continue to play into the future.

I do not believe my opinions are that far off from those of many members of my caucus, including the Prime Minister of Canada. We believe in the collective bargaining process. This legislation is something that was not our first choice. We did not want to have to do this. Members try to give the false impression that the Liberals really wanted to do this, as if we did not believe in the bargaining process. That is not the case.

My colleagues, the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Mount Royal, had asked the leader of the New Democratic Party a question. I thought it was a really important question. It is important for us to understand the significance of the question on this, because I think it is important to the overall debate we are having. There are some individuals within the chamber who, through their questioning and their comments, are trying to paint it in a very political fashion, asking how the Liberals dare to do this. Then there are other members who are making presentations and articulations as to why it is necessary for us to do it.

What was the question that was asked of the leader of the New Democratic Party? If members check Hansard, they will see that he did not answer the question on the legislation. He avoided it, as did the following speaker when I posed the very same question—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will interrupt the parliamentary secretary momentarily to ask him, for sound quality, if he could raise the microphone wand up an inch or so and get it a bit closer to where his voice is, and we will see if that improves the sound quality.

We will go back to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope this works better.

The question is pretty straightforward. Let me encapsulate it: Are there any circumstances whatsoever where the national New Democratic Party would support back-to-work legislation? I think that is a very important question, which the NDP went out of its way not to answer.

I am interested in the answer to that because I believe there are situations that come to the floor or are raised within society that ultimately compel the government to take action. It is not because there is this great desire to do it, but because of the consequences of not taking action.

Why was the question that the NDP leader refused to answer important to me? It was because NDP governments at the provincial level—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Windsor West, on a point of order.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here at that time. The leader of the NDP did answer that question; it is just that the member does not like the answer. If someone were to check Hansard, there is a response.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That is probably more in the category of debate. There will be a 10-minute period for questions and comments, which is likely the time for this type of intervention.

We will now get back to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason this is so important. As a legislative body, do we recognize that at times circumstances dictate that there is a need for back-to-work legislation? My New Democrat friends are going to be voting no to this legislation, and I think Canadians have a right to know where the national New Democratic Party is on this particular issue. Members can read exactly what the leader of the Liberal Party said. The member does not have to believe what I am saying; he can read the answer. He will find that there was no answer to the question.

When the New Democrats have been in government and have had to make decisions with regard to labour disputes, they have on numerous occasions brought in back-to-work legislation. Are they saying that the Liberals are bad and anti-union because we brought in this kind of legislation? I do not think that is a fair assessment. I am a very strong advocate for the union movement, and I believe that in the society we have today, many of the rights workers have, whether they are in union shops or non-union shops, are in place because of our union movement. I do not like to be told by the New Democrats that I am anti-union, because that is just not true. I believe that my record shows this, from day one.

The member who stood up will have an opportunity to review the answers by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I challenge him or any New Democratic member of Parliament to stand in his or her place and say that some circumstances call for the government to bring in back-to-work legislation. I would have a great deal of respect for that sort of comment, because NDP governments in more than one province have done so. In Ontario, I believe on a teacher's issue, the NDP brought legislation in on three different occasions. Please do not quote me on this, but I believe that to be the case. However, they were not alone.

I have talked about my first experiences as a legislator in 1988. Members can look them up. The wonderful thing about Hansard in Ottawa is that everything is recorded. In the Manitoba legislature it is the same thing. There, members will see that there was a significant debate about final offer selection, which I am a big advocate of. I love final offer selection. I think it is a great tool, and I wish that unions and the people sitting across the table from unions would agree to adopt some form of it. It is a great tool that could be in the tool box, and I encourage everyone to give it serious consideration where there are negotiations taking place. Some unions, from what I understand, do actually have it.

I can tell colleagues that back in 1988, it was the Liberal Party that tried to save that particular tool. We were ultimately sabotaged by my New Democrat friends back then. It was a minority government, and they sided with the Conservatives to defeat the motion we put forward that would have ensured there was a chance for final offer selection to continue on.

I remember the debates quite well, because the representation sat not too far from where I am right now, inside the Manitoba legislature. In committees, we listened for hours and hours as to why it was so important.

Last year, on more than one occasion I attempted, through unanimous consent, to recognize a very significant event. It was the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg. It was an event that made news not only in Winnipeg but indeed in all of Canada and beyond. I like to think it is one of the ways that Winnipeg as a city contributed to the debate on the environment in which workers were being compelled to work and why it was so important that there be labour advocates. I suspect it is one of the reasons that labour advocates have come out of the north end of Winnipeg. I think of the Ukrainian Labour Temple, where many of those meetings were conducted. It has been around for over 100 years now. People back then were trying to organize and ensure that the rights of workers would be respected and expanded.

The legislation has come before us because despite a genuine attempt from a number of different stakeholders, to this day they have not been able to achieve an agreement. It is unfortunate. I hope I do not get myself into trouble for saying this, but I personally have a sense of disappointment. I would have liked to see an agreement. With one, we would not have been put in the position we have been put into.

Unlike some members within the chamber, I believe that at times there is a necessity for legislation of this nature, and I think it should be very rare. However, the impression the Bloc and the NDP are trying to give that the Government of Canada has not done anything and is suddenly finally getting engaged and bringing in back-to-work legislation is far greater than a stretch of the imagination. The words I would like to use are unparliamentary, so I cannot use them, but my friends in the Bloc and the NDP are trying to mislead, and some would even suggest intentionally.

The Government of Canada, through the Minister of Labour, has been on this file for well over a year. I commented on the Minister of Labour's comments. She talked about the many different efforts that the government has made to try to facilitate and encourage both sides to come to an agreement. I believe that every member in the Liberal caucus shares my desire to have seen that take place.

Call me an eternal optimist, but it is still not too late. Back in the day, I used to say that we have the greatest potential for growth. I can tell members that there is still an opportunity, and I hope the negotiators will take advantage of that opportunity and somehow come to an agreement.

I note that there were dozens of meetings, well over a hundred, and they were assisted through facilitation. The mediators involved were directly funnelled in from the national government. To imply that the efforts put in were meaningless or showed a lack of interest from the national government is therefore wrong.

I believe that our Minister of Labour, since her appointment, has been very much aware of the file, the issues and the importance of trying to get them resolved. That is the reason that so many of the appointments were made by the Government of Canada through the Minister of Labour. They are important. Montreal is one of Canada's economic hubs. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax have ports that are critical to Canada's economy and our lifestyle. Personally, I hope that someday more stuff will come out of Churchill, Manitoba.

I do not think it comes as a surprise that the impact of a prolonged strike would be significant, and in the back of our minds we should also take into consideration what has been taking place over the last year. We have been listening to our constituents and staying focused on the pandemic, and we are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. We know we are going to get at least 40 million doses of vaccine before the end of June, which is going to be very helpful in our recovery. Things are starting to turn around. Yes, there have been some disappointments with regard to the third wave, but our ports are absolutely critical to enabling us to get back on our feet.

Extending the parties' expired collective agreement until a new collective agreement comes into effect is a good thing, I believe, at this time. The same is true for prohibiting further work stoppages until the expiry of the extended collective agreement and imposing fines on any employer, union or individual who contravenes the provisions of the bill. We are a government that does not want to take sides on the issue. We want to see it resolved. However, we recognize that, unfortunately, in certain circumstances there is a need for legislation, and I am hoping members will see that need.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which might seem commendable if we did not know what we know about this file.

I say with humility that I studied labour relations. During my undergrad, one of the fundamental notions I learned is that bargaining is done in good faith, with a firm resolve to reach a settlement and a profound willingness to do the work.

The longshoremen in Montreal, the union and management have been talking about the working conditions of the longshoremen for more than 800 days. We now know that the longshoremen would be at work tomorrow morning if management agreed to drop their stance on scheduling and respect work-life balance.

We know that the government is very much in favour of work-life balance. It says it works for middle-class families. Then why are workers and families being dealt the blow of special legislation that wipes out more than 800 days of bargaining that is on the table right now? Why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the level of expertise that my colleague brings to the table on this issue. We have demonstrated great respect toward the negotiations and we see that by the participation of federal mediators who have been participants, encouraging the two groups ultimately to come together.

I do not think it is in the government's best interests to say that we support this side and we will do something for it rather than the other. Governments should not be doing that. As much as possible, we need to facilitate, encourage and promote that sense of bargaining. However, as a member from Quebec, surely to goodness my colleague sees that at times there are circumstances where one needs to have this tool and use it with respect to back-to-work legislation.

Even though I focused my attention on New Democrats, and I think I scared them off because they do not follow on the questions, does the Bloc support situations where it might want to bring in back-to-work legislation? I do not know if René Lévesque ever did. I believe at times it probably has seen provincial—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will need to get on to some other questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not scared of my hon. colleague. Sometimes I am scared of what he says in this chamber, and there is no doubt about that.

With regard to this situation, how can the member talk about PPE being at risk when the union has identified that all of it will pass, that it has been been moved along. That is part of its overall strategy and part of the compromise of ensuring public safety.

Second, most of that material is coming in by plane. Today, Canada received more vaccines by air shipment. Therefore, how can he be so disingenuous in his so-called camaraderie with unions when he uses scare tactics about PPE, about this union and about its situation in this port?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully I will get more questions and the member for Windsor West might be able to provide some clarity on the issue that has been posed to his leader. Having said that, let me attempt to provide an answer for the member.

I do not claim to understand and appreciate all the logistics of a port. What I do know is that when relatively large ships are full of containers, what is in the containers varies quite significantly. It is not as easy as saying ship one has 25 containers, let us manipulate it around, get it to the dock and unload those containers. I just do not have that kind of expertise. I suspect it is a little more complicated than the member has just indicated.

Again, I do not know the details of the negotiations, so there could be far more to it than that. I am not able to point it out at this time.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour said earlier on that the scenario that the member for Windsor West was creating overlooked the logistics of it. If PPE were the only materials coming in, then everything else that happens from that point, that the routes from there get significantly limited because there is no ability to move stuff because it is not moving with other stuff. The member for Windsor West is oversimplifying the issue.

The parliamentary secretary has asked the question of NDP members. I have asked the question of NDP members. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour has asked the question of the NDP members. I asked the question for the leader of the NDP. I asked him what his threshold was, at what point would he eventually say okay, that we need to bring in legislation. Does such a threshold exist? Every time we ask that question, NDP members skate around the answer. They just refuse to answer the question. They stay as far away from it as they possibly can.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give his insight as to why he thinks the NDP might be doing that.