Debates of Dec. 14th, 2023

Canada Labour Code

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now I am voting to protect Canadian jobs. Right now, we have a problem with foreign replacement workers and we are not getting any answers. I am more than happy to talk about Bill C‑58, but we want answers. We are taking advantage of this debate to ask the government why companies will be hiring foreign replacement workers. In our opinion, that is the same thing as bringing in scabs. We are bringing in people from outside Canada to fill Canadian jobs. That is what we want to know today.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, right now across Canada we are seeing a cost of living crisis, and this bill would do something important. It would ensure a level playing field, giving workers the power to negotiate as equals with their employers.

We know the Conservatives have supported back-to-work legislation repeatedly, so I am wondering on which side the Conservatives are. Are they on the side of the workers or the side of the CEOs, who make so much when workers make so little?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my speech was clear. The current situation in Canada is unprecedented. This government has put our public finances in a very bad state, and has caused unprecedented inflation and interest rate hikes. Workers can no longer make ends meet. They do not have enough money to pay their rent and their other bills at the end of the month. That is the problem. All of the opposition parties need to work together to stop the government from continuing to spend recklessly.

Bill C-59—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with the patience of the House, I have a point of order. It is in response to the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, better known as the fall economic statement.

I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to the provisions in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement but not referenced in the 2023 budget.

Let me quote the standing order in question, which reads:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

(2) The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The legal title of the bill reads, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”. I can confirm to the House that the significant majority of provisions in Bill C-59 would implement measures announced and articulated in the 2023 budget. The fall economic statement was designed to respond to affordability challenges facing Canadians, and these measures reflect a minority of provisions in the bill.

The key to the standing order is the ability for the government to provide a compelling rationale as to why there is a common element or theme that connects the various provisions. In my intervention on that matter last week, I stated that the provisions to implement the legislative measures announced in the fall economic statement were linked to a common theme of affordability for Canadians. This intervention therefore allows me to provide in greater detail how these measures demonstrate a clear link to addressing the affordability concerns of Canadians.

Before I review the measures that were only referenced in the fall economic statement, I would like to point out that many of the measures identified by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle were referenced in the 2023 budget.

Clauses 1 through 95 relate to proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act that in principle would ensure the robustness of Canada's tax system to provide benefits to Canadians, to create good-quality jobs and to build an economy that works for everyone. There is only one measure in these clauses that was not announced in the budget, that is, the information-sharing provision between departments to facilitate the provision of the government's dental benefit program. I would note that the dental benefit was a budget 2023 measure, and this provision was a technical fix to ensure the smooth operationalization of the benefit. This measure, along with the corresponding technical fix, is clearly a measure to address affordability challenges faced by Canadians who are eligible for the benefit.

Clauses 96 through 128 would establish a digital services tax, which was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents. Therefore, it should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 129 to 136 relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act that are designed to ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly and properly affected by the excise tax, to enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination and a great place to do business, and to support Canadians' participation in the labour market. All measures contained in clauses 129 to 136 were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 136 to 144 also relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act, which would ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly treated by the excise tax. These measures would enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination, which not only creates excellent job opportunities for Canadians, but also contributes to the revenues to strengthen Canada's social safety net. A significant majority of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages.

There are three measures that were not announced in the 2023 budget, but their purpose is clearly designed to address affordability challenges for Canadians. These include a measure that would exempt psychotherapy from federal tax, which would not only reduce the cost of therapy for Canadians, but also contribute to their well-being so they can productively contribute to the labour market. The second measure involves provisions to ensure that co-operative housing units are eligible for the 100% GST rebate on purpose-built housing, which is a real and significant investment to help build homes for Canadians and address affordability challenges for Canadians to find a place to call home.

Clauses 145 to 167 concern the taxation of vaping products and cannabis products in Canada. These revenues provide investments for Canada to strengthen our social supports, and provide a price signal to Canadians of the health effects of the abuse of these products, while also providing for a fair and stable taxation of vaping and cannabis products.

Clauses 168 to 196 would amend the laws governing financial institutions, which are designed to strengthen the governance of Canadian financial institutions. They are important to keeping Canadians' money and investments, as well as our financial institutions, safe and secure. All of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 197 to 208 relate to proposed leave entitlements related to pregnancy loss and bereavement leave, which are designed to support workers. Canadian workers are the backbone of the economy, and anyone who faces the tragedy of pregnancy loss deserves rightful access to bereavement leave. Ultimately, this measure would ensure that Canadians who are dealing with this tragedy are not also burdened by the loss of income. Again, all of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 209 to 216 relate to the establishment of a Canada water agency, which would create good jobs for Canadians and protect Canadians' access to fresh, clean water. It would also restore, protect and manage bodies of water of national significance. Canadians should be able to count on access to clean water. In an era of increasing climate disruption, an independent Canadian water agency, which would be located in Winnipeg, would help to protect our bodies of water. This measure was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 217 and 218 relate to the proposed amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, which would provide the government with the authority to develop and implement tobacco and vaping cost recovery frameworks. It would also limit the cost burden on taxpayers for the funding of federal tobacco and vaping activities. In essence, these measures would ensure that Canadians are not on the hook for paying for the development or regulatory frameworks related to vaping, which would not only free up funds that could otherwise be spent on the investments and supports Canadians rely on, but also provide Canadians who use such products with additional disposable income to spend on the essentials of life.

Clauses 219 to 230 propose amendments to the Canadian Payments Act to make the Canadian banking system safer and more secure while delivering more innovative services for Canadians. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that Canadians hard-earned money is safe in the financial institutions they rely upon.

Clauses 231 to 272 would amend the Competition Act to help increase competition, most notably in the grocery sector where Canadians have experienced rising prices that have impacted their ability to feed their families with healthy and nutritious foods. These amendments are designed to make life more affordable for Canadians by lowering prices and providing more choice, which in turn stimulates competition to compete on pricing and encourage the development of more innovative products and services for Canadians.

Clauses 273 to 277 would exempt post-secondary education institutions from the laws governing bankruptcy and insolvency. By educating our young people and conducting world-leading research, post-secondary educational institutions play a critical role in Canada's social, scientific, and economic development. These amendments would help protect the solvency of Canadian post-secondary institutions.

Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The NDP House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your indulgence. I know the member can speak with some passion. If he could liven this up, it would be to the benefit of everybody in the House. We have been working very hard, and we need some motivation. Reading in a monotone does not provide that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, my question is quite simple. I am wondering if this will be included in the member for Kingston and the Islands's calculation on obstruction of the business of this place. He seemed to be finding out how to do some math on the subject earlier. I am wondering if this would be included in that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is getting into debate, and I was just wondering if there was some filibustering going on.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader can continue. I know there are a few more pages to go.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, there was a point when I talked about the water agency, and I did go a little off-script. I said that was something that was happening in Winnipeg, which was somewhat spontaneous on my part, to try to liven it up a little. I will stick to my script so I can get right to the point. I am very close to being done.

Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism, and the threats they pose to the safety of Canadians and the integrity of our financial system. These threats have real costs for the Canadian economy and for Canadians. Not only will these amendments help keep Canadians hard-earned money safe, but also keep our financial system sound. These measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 318 and 319 would require the publication of information relating to the transfer of payments to the provinces. The federal government provides transfers to the provinces and territories that help deliver the services Canadians rely on, such as child care, which is a key measure to ease Canadians affordability concerns with respect to the care of their young children, and importantly to help deliver the health care that Canadians need when they are at their most vulnerable state.

Clauses 320 to 322 would amend the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to ensure that workers are represented in the governance of the public sector pension investments by giving a voice to labour representatives in making investment decision for workers' retirement benefits. These amendments would contribute to stronger investments that would support jobs for middle-class Canadians.

The final clauses referenced by my colleague are clauses 323 to 341, which would clarify the department mandate of Infrastructure Canada to include powers, duties and functions of the department to take a lead role for improving housing outcomes, and to enhance its activities and powers in relation to public infrastructure. These proposed amendments will assist the department in helping to deliver on Canadians' desire and need for housing in a more efficient and effective manner.

In conclusion, I submit that a significant majority of the provisions in Bill C-59 were announced in the 2023 budget and, as such, these measures should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. The minority of amendments in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement were designed to ease Canadians' concerns about affordability. These provisions, which seek to advance measures that address affordability concerns, represent a common theme and should be grouped as such. as provided for under Standing Order 69.1.

I thank the Speaker and all members for their patience in getting through that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member was adding to the point of order that was raised earlier. I appreciate the additional information, and certainly we will take it under consideration.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Labour Code

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to things that matter to my constituents and to myself.

I did want to take this opportunity first of all to congratulate Tchadas Leo. He is not in my constituency now, but he grew up there. He actually used to be my sons' French tutor. He was just named on Amazon's 2023 best Canadian podcasts of the year list, so that is very exciting. He does tremendous work and talks about the indigenous realities. I really appreciate his work and wanted to acknowledge him today.

We are in this place, so close to the end, talking about a bill I am particularly passionate about, Bill C-58. This is about prohibiting the use of replacement workers and modifying the business continuity process. The reason this is so important to me and to the riding I represent is that we all appreciate the amazing work unions do.

In the House, I talk a lot about there being a bar of dignity in Canada. I feel the bar of dignity is sinking. We need to raise it up so all Canadians have a level of dignity that is acceptable, which means one just has enough to exist and get by without being afraid every day about one's future.

I really need to thank unions. Part of the reason we have all the social programs in this country is the hard work of labour unions. They remind us again and again to work for one another, to care about one another and to make sure that, when people work, they are treated with the dignity they deserve.

This bill is so important because it really is about looking at the system we have in Canada and understanding that, all too often, workers lose their power because replacement workers are able to go in and fill those positions when they are doing their important work of standing up against employers on issues that really matter.

The reality is that we know workers across this country deserve a lot more respect. They are working hard every day doing what is best, and they are still falling behind. This is an epidemic we are seeing in this country that needs to be dealt with. We need to see better wages, and we need to see better working conditions. The NDP has a long documented history of always working on the side of workers and listening to those voices.

In fact, when it comes to this legislation, the NDP is in an agreement that forced the Liberal government to move forward with this meaningful piece of legislation. We know this because the NDP introduced anti-scab legislation in this place eight times in the last 15 years. In fact, the last time it came up for a vote, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against it. This just tells us that there is a long history of the NDP being here, and we took what power we had with 25 members to make sure workers are better represented in this country and have more power in this country, and it is about time.

Like unions, and like workers across Canada, we did not give up. We kept working diligently. We know the fight is hard and significant. We know that because right now, across this country, people cannot afford the food they desperately need to exist. As that is happening, grocery stores are making some of the biggest profits, especially those big box ones. It is not those local ones in our communities, which often do so much for the community, such as pay for sports clubs and help out. An example of this is Quality Foods in Campbell River ans what it does with the fireworks every Canada Day. It is those big box stores that are taking home huge profits at the expense of workers.

We know, for example, that Galen Weston makes 431 times the average of the workers who work for him. Those folks who work every day on the front lines are interacting constantly with people. They are seeing people who cannot afford the groceries they have in their carts and need to put items back on the shelves. Often, workers in those grocery stores cannot afford to shop at the grocery store they work at. They have to go to food banks to make ends meet, and Galen Weston is making over 400 times the amount those workers are. That just tells us one of the things we need to address in this country is that growing inequity. It is happening. We can see it.

There is a lot of research showing that the top 1% continue to make more money and pay less in taxes while everyday workers work hard, get paid about the same and, knowing that inflation is impacting their income, keep working hard and paying their fair share in taxes. I hope that we, as a place that understands the bar of dignity for all Canadians, start considering that. Even though Galen Weston makes that much, the average these top CEOs are making is 235 times what their workers are making. I think that is totally unacceptable. It is something that all of us in this place should be addressing, and this is one step toward doing that.

What is a scab? A scab is a person hired after the notice to bargain has gone out. These people are coming from other employers to work in a facility as contractors not already hired by the employer until a strike action happens. As a member who represents a more rural riding, I can say that right now the impact this has on community is profound. We see people we grocery shop with out on the line every day standing up for their rights as workers and see others walking past that line to work somewhere. Some have to keep fighting and are not getting paid or getting the supports they need and it decimates communities. It is really profound. That is why we are fighting for this.

We also know that corporations are getting more tricky. They may have people out on the picket lines while getting people to work remotely. This legislation matters because it is for all of Canada. I recognize that both Quebec and B.C. have anti-scab legislation. We know where that came from in B.C.; it was definitely the New Democrats. However, it has to be across the country and it needs to be more fulsome so we can protect workers.

Is it not time we started to protect workers in a more meaningful and profound way? We know that workers have waited long enough. How many more years do they have to wait? How many times has this promise been made and not followed through with? We are going to make it happen and we are really happy to do this.

What this means for people is protection against replacement workers, which gives workers more power in negotiations and helps to have a more balanced bargaining table. That is incredibly important. We know that using scabs again and again creates unforeseen things. We have heard stories of the violence that often lingers in communities much longer than the labour dispute. We know that workers have even been injured or killed as a result of these tensions. When people are doing their very best to survive and see other people limiting their ability to do that, it raises a lot of concerns, and we do not want to see violence increase.

Of course, whenever workers are replaced, it means employers get to continue on like nothing is wrong, not acknowledging safety issues and issues around how much people are compensated. These things become difficult and this legislation is going to make all the difference.

I want to thank the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bea Bruske, who said, “We have seen years of record corporate profits while workers’ pay lagged far behind. Workers are rightly demanding fairer wages, better safety standards and respect from their employers.” She went on to say, “If we ban the use of scabs once and for all, we can take a real step towards less labour disruptions, avoiding work stoppages and building a more balanced economy—while increasing the benefits and respect workers deserve.”

We need to see a country that focuses much more on workers and looks at the power they need and rightfully should have. What we want to see in this place is more cohesion so we can support those workers. We know that often disputes last six times longer when employers use scabs than when there are no scabs. That, for me, is enough. We need to make this right.

Again and again in this place we have seen back-to-work legislation come forward and both the Liberals and the Conservatives have supported it. It is absolutely time to stop that. Let us get it done by having this in place.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening quite carefully to the speeches coming from members of the NDP. I notice they keep using the term “fair share” of tax.

I wonder if the member could articulate for the House what exactly they mean by “fair share”? Is there a percentage? We know that high-income earners in Canada pay between 50% and 55% of their income toward income tax depending on which province they live in, so what percentage is the right percentage? What do they call fair?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so sad to hear that lack of understanding and awareness in this place, and I really encourage the member to do research. We know that people who have the—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There are opportunities for questions and comments. If members have questions and comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time. A member has already been recognized, and I would ask others to wait to ask a question at a different time.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for that. It is unfortunate that members feel so defensive that the only result is to yell while I am giving a simple answer.

Fairness is not a reality in this country. We know that the top 1% earners are getting so much more. They are paying less tax because they are using every tax loophole. In fact, some are hiding their money overseas. These are policies that the Liberals and the Conservatives have continuously supported. That is unfortunate but it is the reality.

I encourage all members to talk to everyday working people, who pay their fair share of tax, about how it feels when other people do not pay theirs. I also want to remind the Conservative Party that the Conservatives in the U.K. acknowledged this by having a windfall tax and making sure that money went back into communities to support them during very trying times.

We know this is a reality. There are a lot of graphs out there. I encourage them to do their research.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, anti-scab legislation has been an important personal issue for me for many years, dating all the way back to 1988 and 1989 in my first few years as a parliamentarian. I was really glad when the Prime Minister incorporated that into our last election platform, and I am really glad that three political entities in the chamber are committed to getting anti-scab legislation through.

What I find interesting is that the Conservatives have yet to say how they are going to vote on the legislation, yet out in the communities, they are telling people that they are for the workers.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, we honestly do not know where the Conservatives are on this very important bill, which would bring more balance to workers. This bill focuses solely on workers and it is an opportunity. We know that the corporate-controlled Conservatives have a hard time working for people. They like to say things, but when it comes to workers, they do not do them. We have seen that in how they vote for back-to-work legislation repeatedly.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her clear message today that we need anti-scab legislation and for her reminder of how critical this legislation is for workers' rights and for fairness for workers and all of us. It is a historic moment, as we are seeing the NDP once again standing up for workers, standing up for Canadians and fighting back. However, we have the Conservatives, in a party that has revamped itself recently and is pretending to defend Canadians who are struggling, who are refusing to get behind anti-scab legislation.

Can my colleague share her views on why the Conservatives are refusing to stand up for Canadian workers?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a really important question. My grandma used to always say the proof is in the pudding. We know that actions speak louder than words, and what we have seen again and again with the corporate-controlled Conservatives is that they choose their corporate friends over hard-working Canadians. They can say they are about the working class, but again and again their actions show that that is not their focus and it is not what they do. It is one thing to say something; it is a completely different thing to do it. The NDP will continue to do the work that matters so much to workers across this country.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to observe the debate that has been taking place in the chamber here today on Bill C-58. I would note a couple of observations, if I could, because I believe they provide important context to the conversation we are having.

One observation that I note to members and to the many Canadians who I am sure are watching is the flip-flops we are seeing in this regard. We have the Liberals desperate to keep the NDP onside, yet it seems like the New Democrats are quick to sell out when it comes to holding on to the thread of power they feel they have. We hear the New Democrats talk tough against the Liberals in one sentence; then they walk down the street to committee.

The leader of the NDP said in the beginning that committees would not be affected by the confidence and supply coalition agreement, yet we see the New Democrats capitulating to the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is completely irrelevant. We are talking about anti-replacement worker legislation, and a member cannot get up and just talk. If he has not read the bill, I would suggest he read the bill and get the information, but he has to speak on topic.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that there is some flexibility during speeches. However, hon. members do need to ensure that their speech is related to the bill and should mention the bill from time to time during their speech, if possible, or aspects within the bill.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.