Earl Dreeshen

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Canadians are in suspense right now as well because they want to know what would happen if we had an election. I am prepared to listen to whatever the electorate says in that regard as well.

We are talking about three westerners from the Liberal Party. I hope that the member is one of them.

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, what I said is it was a couple of years ago when it was first proposed and now we are finally seeing it come for discussion. The other question was whether we should have 18 months. There will be a different government in 18 months.

It still comes back to: What have we heard? What are we looking at? Are there are any assurances that the restrictions on replacement workers are going to speed up negotiations? Those are the questions and what I believe everyone is talking about here today.

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it would certainly have helped if I had learned some French over the years. My interpretation said 18 days, but it is 18 months, as we know.

There are concerns and one is if the House is not sitting and there is an expectation of having right-to-work legislation. When the House sits, we can deal with that when needed, but if it is not, then all of a sudden it gets dragged out. We can always say that is allowing the process to work. However, we do not work our way through that problem, and maybe that is something we should be looking at as well because it is something we see happen with the ministry of labour.

As I mentioned during my address, it is important that everybody talks to the labour minister because there are a lot of other things that happen other than just his discussion with businesses' employees.

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-58 regarding labour issues in Canada. In both my former professional role as a teacher and my volunteer role as a hospital board member, I have dealt with labour strife over those years.

The issue of replacement workers was always uppermost in the minds of both my colleagues in teaching and our community health care workers. One of my fellow hospital board members was Tony Silbernagel. He sadly passed away just a few months ago, but as an astute businessman and community volunteer, Tony taught me so much about compassion within our community.

There have been a number of dear friends over the past couple of months who have also passed away. Erhard Poggemiller was the former mayor of Kerrobert, Saskatchewan. Once he moved to Alberta, he was a councillor in Didsbury up until the last election. His sudden passing was a shock to us all, but I know how committed he too was to health care in Saskatchewan.

Two other dear friends, who served as Red Deer city councillors, passed away during the Christmas holidays. My childhood friend, Michael Dawe, was a treasured member of the city of Red Deer. As a historian and archivist, there was no one better. His former colleague, Frank Wong, also passed away during this time. Another icon of our community and former Red Deer alderman was Jack Donald. His philanthropy and care for our community were something that will be remembered forever.

Communities have many leaders. Friends like Dave Brown, Winnie MacFayden and Jean Klepper did so much for our central Alberta communities. Whether in sports or agriculture, they were also leaders. Sadly, within my family, we just dealt with the passing of my wife's brother, Charles Moore. Charlie was one of the founders of then-premier Lougheed's dream of rural gasification throughout Alberta. He received lifetime achievement awards from the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops and the Alberta Association of Agricultural Societies for his unwavering commitment to community. He was also the recipient of at least five community, provincial and national medals and citations. It was all for the community, for each and every one of these dear friends who have recently passed away.

My experiences with labour disruptions started in the late sixties, when I chose to remain at home while my family enjoyed a trip to California so that I could look after the farm and complete a correspondence course over the summer. I had just received all of my lessons when a postal strike started. It was more than three weeks later that I was finally able to send any lessons up to Edmonton to get marked. I received the input from the instructors only a couple of days before I had to write the final exams. Postal strikes take their toll.

Coming from an agricultural community and having seen the effects of workplace actions, either at the ports or with the railroad, I am well aware of the costs that exist when Canada's supply chain is disrupted. This legislation looks at some of these issues, but there must be true certainty, especially now, as we look for solutions to get our country's economy back on track. It is with those thoughts in mind that I would like to address some of the key points of this legislation. With all of it, though, there is the underpinning of the responsibility of a federal government to ensure that everything in this country runs smoothly.

The buck stops at the cabinet table. We may look at a labour minister as being the one with the responsibility to make these tough decisions, but if it does not have strong input from the ministers of other critical infrastructure, such as agriculture and natural resources, and from other regional ministers, the government never gets the true picture of the pain that these labour disruptions actually cause to the country. That is also why it is important for us, as legislators, to be able to deal with these issues. I wonder if it should be a common goal for all of us to ensure that cabinet can quickly deal with these issues, especially when back-to-work legislation can be interrupted by something as simple as the House not sitting.

I have been on both sides of the table when it comes to negotiations. It is never easy, but having done so, I am well aware of the strategies that are involved with labour issues. The reality is, either as a teacher and a member of the Alberta Teachers Association at the time, or as a hospital board representative, the real decision-makers were beyond my reach. Negotiators do what they feel is in the best interest of negotiations, not necessarily the best interest of members. This is a harsh reality, but it is in fact true.

However, that does not mean workers, companies and businesses cannot find common ground. If one looks at the results of many negotiations, once the threat of back-to-work legislation becomes evident, it is amazing how quickly two sides can get together. Unions would argue, and perhaps they are right, that is for us to see, that this type of legislation helps on the other side as well.

When they do, of course, there is a sense of pride and accomplishment if it is managed to be done without government intervention. That is the way it should be. As government, we should find ways to ensure that is the rule and not the exception. A fair and logical approach for replacement workers, one hopes, would make negotiations more meaningful.

This bill was tabled in November 2021, and we are now here, in February 2024, debating it. The Liberal-NDP coalition sure likes to take its time with the legislation it tables for debate. Nevertheless, moving on, Bill C-58 would do two major things. First, it would ban replacement workers in federally regulated industries, such as banking, airports and telecommunications, but it does not ban them in the federal public service.

Second, Bill C-58 would amend the maintenance of the activities process to encourage not only quicker agreements between employers and trade unions on what activities should be maintained in the case of a strike or lockout, but also faster decision-making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board in this connection. The provision of Bill C-58 would only apply to federally regulated workers. If enacted, the provision of Bill C-58 would enter into force 18 months after royal assent has been received.

One of the concerns with rail and port disruptions in agriculture is that any delays for a producer getting their product to market has a serious impact on their cash flow. In fact, it can be days or weeks of obstruction for farmers, and that ripple effect could last the entire season. When it comes to the movement of goods, it is not just the issue of the days workers do not show up. All the way down the supply chain, affected businesses need to adjust their schedules. It can sometimes be weeks to get the system running smoothly again.

Everyone deserves to have a safe workplace, a beneficial relationship with their employer that is built on a foundation of trust and goodwill. Just the same, businesses need to be able to operate and meet their clients' demands in a manner that allows them to continue to operate.

My concerns with this bill, Bill C-58, have nothing to do with workers' rights to organize or to engage in collective bargaining, because Canadian workers undoubtedly have those rights. However, labour legislation is always controversial in Canada. I want to be clear. There is a big difference between the boots on the ground and the suits in the union offices. The agendas are not always aligned. Conservatives believe that the government should work with unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to develop dispute settlement mechanisms and to encourage their use to avoid or to minimize disruptions to services in Canada.

Of course, the Liberal government, ironically, has put a lot of money into contract workers and replacement workers. It is basically the same type of thing. GC Strategies, a two-person IT company that does no actual IT work, was paid nearly $20 million for ArriveCAN. That money could have been spent much more wisely.

In conclusion, I have concerns about the impact and the reach of this legislation. I have concerns about whether this bill draws the right balance between employer and employee. There are mixed signals from the Liberal government. On one hand, it speaks glowingly about banning the use of replacement workers but on the other hand, it is investing heavily in consultants.

As Canada rebuilds from the pandemic, from the imposed mandates and the economic consequences of undisciplined spending, it is vital that we rebuild our economy and workforce with sound labour policies.

[Petitions, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to table a petition on behalf of correctional officers in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and surrounding areas, who are concerned about the prison needle exchange program currently being operated by Correctional Services Canada.

Drugs and drug paraphernalia are considered contraband in prisons, yet the Liberal government is forcing our correctional officers to simply turn a blind eye and allow dangerous drugs to be used inside of prisons.

These correctional officers are calling on the government to immediately cancel the prison needle exchange program, stop permitting the use of illicit drugs in Canadian prisons, and focus efforts on helping inmates recover from their addictions.

[Carbon Pricing, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, these ministers must do a lot more than just mouth Greta's catchphrases.

Grain commodity prices have dropped 20% to 40% in the last few months. Localized drought and flooding always takes its toll. The price drop is because prairie farmers have had one of the best yielding crops ever, but there is no more profit. Suppliers, banks and governments are the only winners. Quadrupling the carbon tax on farmers' inputs will be devastating.

Will the Liberals stop playing games and give farmers the break they need?

[Carbon Pricing, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, farmers and consumers know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Increasing the carbon tax only increases the cost of goods in stores. For those farmers who cannot pass on the exorbitant carbon tax, it destroys their bottom line.

Will the Liberals reject the Senate's amendments and restore Bill C-234 to its original state, removing the carbon tax on farmers and lowering the price of food for Canadians?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to the orders in council adopted since November 4, 2015: (a) how many orders in council have not been published on the Privy Council Office website; and (b) with respect to each order in council not published, (i) what is the number assigned to it, (ii) what is the date on which it was adopted, (iii) who was the minister who gave the recommendation to adopt it, (iv) which departments, agencies or Crown corporations did it concern, (v) what is its subject-matter, (vi) did it enact regulations exempted from examination, publication or registration under the Statutory Instruments Act?

[Business of Supply, December 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today, especially to speak on behalf of farmers, first nations and families.

The members of the Liberal-NDP government are completely out of touch with the real needs of Canadians. Their blind, ideological obsession has increased the price of groceries for a family of four by over $700, bringing the total family cost to over $16,000.

Ontario first nations are seeking a judicial review of the federal government's carbon pricing regime, arguing that Ottawa's pollution pricing policy unjustly and disproportionately burdens their communities.

Farmers continue to be handcuffed by an embedded carbon tax on farm inputs that unfairly affects their bottom line and affects their competitiveness within the global agricultural market. Farming and farmers across this country have unique obstacles through which they must navigate. Those farmers who do not face competition from foreign food suppliers tend to be able to pass some of the added expenses onto the consumer but costs like fuel, fertilizer, herbicides, seed, labour, transportation, capital costs, interest and property taxes cause many sleepless nights for farmers. Another item that many businesses would factor in is profit; however, that is never guaranteed in farming.

While we are discussing competitiveness, if we look to our friends in Australia, who have axed the tax in favour of a direct action policy, where investment dollars are available, the competitiveness is creating new technology and achieving targets without taxing citizens and businesses. Canadian farmers, first nations, and small and medium-sized businesses in Canada are grappling with a competitiveness problem because of these restrictive and harmful Liberal-NDP coalition policies. We see this competitive disadvantage compared to our international allies that do not have a carbon tax, like the United States. We see Canadian companies that have developed clean technology or telecommunications achievements leaving Canada because they cannot gain funding to scale business for American investors who are backed by more flexible government policies.

Canadian competitiveness is also hampered by the government's lack of cohesive policies to counter China and the supply chain issue. We have heard over and over how the Liberal-NDP coalition believes Canada needs to produce domestic critical minerals, but the action lags behind their desire in this area. We are ever more reliant on China and its network of critical mineral mines around the world to produce things like EV batteries.

We are seeing the highest level of food bank use. We are seeing food report after food report showing grocery prices on the rise. The increasing input costs for products, global events and rising production costs have contributed to these price increases.

Something that I want to come back to is the fact that first nations in Ontario are seeking a judicial review of the Liberal-NDP carbon pricing regime. They disclosed in court documents the adverse effect that carbon taxes had on their communities. In a Globe and Mail article, they noted that the carbon price violates the principles of reconciliation and their constitutional rights. They also disclosed that they tried to negotiate with the coalition government. Why were they not able to reach an agreement? It is no secret that the carbon price rebate is tied to one's income. As the Ontario chiefs noted, “many First Nations members living on reserves do not pay income tax and cannot access the rebates”. That is another example of the coalition government developing policy that is restrictive and built in a box, instead of something that is adaptive and that would consider the challenges that first nations face on reserve.

There is a pan-Canadian ripple effect of the carbon pricing regime the Liberal-NDP coalition is pushing. The cost is downloaded onto consumers, products and services, but now the government wants Canadians to dig a little deeper and really give up their last red cent. These destructive policies are having a profound impact on Canadians' ability to balance their budget, make ends meet and put food on their tables.

Coming back to the food price report released today, it paints a bleak picture of struggling Canadians. Food costs will rise anywhere from 2.5% to 4.5% this year. The average family of four is expected to spend $16,297 on groceries in 2024. Canadians are reducing the amount they are spending on groceries. Between 2022 and 2023, Canadians reduced the amount they spent in food and beverage retail by 3.26%. The reason is they have a lot of other bills they have to pay. Canadians are being forced to supplement or totally use food banks, and the government has failed to realize that its destructive policies directly impact the struggles of Canadians, first nations and farmers.

Speaking of farmers, right now I am farmer and have a lot experience in this regard. I am very concerned about what happened in the Senate, as we know that farmers feed communities and provide the commodities we need to advance our food security at times when they are needed.

[Carbon Tax, December 7th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak about some very pressing matters. Times are hard for Canadians. A new food report out today shows that Canadians will be paying an extra $700 next year to feed their families.

The Senate amendment to Bill C-234, which would have provided farm families with a much-needed break from the carbon tax, now has its passage in limbo after the Prime Minister lobbied his appointed senators in order to protect his minister.

The Prime Minister could not care less about how his policies have created two classes of Canadians, those who pay the carbon tax and those who do not. First nations are taking the government to court, arguing that the carbon pricing regime of the Prime Minister unjustly and disproportionately impacts their communities and that they will be worse off. It is time to take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, it is time for common-sense Conservative government. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.