Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Canada Labour Code, April 28th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on introducing this very important bill.

At one point, the federal government hinted that it was considering applying the Charter of the French Language, or Bill 101, at the federal level. In the end, this was not at all the case, according to the Liberals' famous white paper. In it, the government indicated that its vision was rather to give francophones the right to work in French. However, having the right to work in French does not mean that the institutions function in French.

Am I mistaken in saying that?

I would like my colleague to talk about the Liberals' plan for the French language and about its impact. In my view, their plan will not change much.

[April 28th, 2021]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I sometimes forget.

When my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville asked the hon. member for Mount Royal whether the bill would contain guarantees for workers that the employer would not start imposing shifts again, he said yes. However, when pressed on the issue by our leader, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly, during question period, the Prime Minister refused to answer.

Why did the Prime Minister refuse to answer and repeat what the hon. member for Mount Royal guaranteed my colleague?

[April 28th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, earlier in his speech, Mr. Housefather said—

[Proceedings on a Bill Entitled An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Operations at the Port of Montreal, April 27th, 2021]

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

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

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

[Proceedings on a Bill Entitled An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Operations at the Port of Montreal, April 27th, 2021]

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

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

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

[Proceedings on a Bill Entitled An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Operations at the Port of Montreal, April 27th, 2021]

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

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

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

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

[Proceedings on a Bill Entitled An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Operations at the Port of Montreal, April 27th, 2021]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Labour, April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, where has the government been over the past few weeks? It was nowhere to be seen. Every time this government is involved in a dispute, it turns into an economic crisis.

Last year, the Liberals let the CN labour dispute drag on until a propane shortage threatened farmers. They let the Wet'suwet'en conflict drag on to the point where the Prime Minister even recommended sending in the police to deal with indigenous protesters. Now, the Liberals have been watching the Montreal port negotiations and waiting for them to hit a wall so that they could introduce special legislation.

Seriously, does the Prime Minister have any desire to lead this country?

[Labour, April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the press reported that the president and CEO of CN thought the strike at the Port of Montreal would have less of an impact than feared because everyone has seen this coming for weeks.

Businesses have diverted their cargo to other ports in places like Halifax, and the routes have been changed. Everyone is just waiting for things to come to a head since the federal government revealed last month that it was prepared to introduce special legislation.

Why did the government just give in and wait for the negotiations to stall?

Where was the Prime Minister?

[Governor General's Act, April 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleagues from the other parties about the bill introduced by my colleague from Mirabel. I must say that I was disappointed, but not necessarily surprised.

The purpose of Bill C-271 is to amend the Governor General's Act to primarily do two things. The first is to set the annual salary of the Queen's representative at $1. If this could be done for the Queen, that might not be a bad idea either. The second is to repeal part II of the act in order to remove the Governor General's right to a retiring annuity.

The role of the Governor General is to represent Queen Elizabeth II, Canada's sovereign and head of state. We have to wonder if we really need that. We already know that the answer is no, but for now we are stuck with it.

Some will say that we absolutely do need a governor general and that they will lose sleep if we do not have one. I do not get it at all, because I do not know many people in Quebec who think about the Governor General on a daily basis other than to rage about how much it all costs.

The Governor General is appointed by the Prime Minister. However, they say there is a separation of powers. In general, prime ministerial appointments are somewhat political because prime ministers do not appoint their adversaries. In any event, that is what happened in the past. The people who were appointed were highly partisan, highly federalist types, people who had chaired the “No” campaign during the referendum, including David Johnston and Lise Thibault. So much for being a non-partisan position. The facts show that that is not really the case.

When an individual is appointed by the Prime Minister, they are somewhat beholden to the Prime Minister. They cannot forget that it is thanks to the Prime Minister that they have a fat pension and a big salary. In return, that person tries not to make any trouble for the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, even if the Governor General wanted to cause trouble, they do not have much power. On paper, the Governor General's roles are to serve as commander-in-chief of the army, grant royal assent to acts passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, sign official documents, read the throne speech, swear the Prime Minister, the chief justice of Canada and cabinet ministers into office, and appoint lieutenant governors, who represent the Queen in the provinces and Quebec.

I do not see why all of these roles are so important or why they should be played by the Governor General. We can get back to this later.

Julie Payette was asked whether her position was relevant. Curiously enough, she, the Governor General, was unable to justify the existence of her own job. When she was asked this question in 2013, she responded that she did not think it was appropriate for her to answer the question. Essentially, she was so uncomfortable saying that this position she held was pointless that she evaded the question.

The Governor General receives an annual salary of over $270,000, which is a lot of money, plus an expense account. However, that is not all. There is also a pension of $150,000 a year for life. Furthermore, the role of the Governor General is not limited to the person of the Governor General. There is a whole support team. Royal duties come with plenty of royal pageantry. The Governor General's ostentatious swearing-in ceremony can cost millions of dollars. Receptions are held at the drop of a hat and, obviously, the Governor General is not serving guests Kraft Dinner and hot dogs, but food that is probably a lot more sophisticated and costly.

The Governor General also gets a limousine and an official residence. The Queen's representative needs somewhere to live, but not just any place. It has to be a royal residence. The Governor General's residence is costing us a lot of money in upkeep. The government has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes more, in maintaining it. The Governor General also goes to lots of cocktail parties here, there and everywhere, so they need a car or even a plane for transportation. Since Canada is a big country, sometimes the Governor General has to travel long distances.

All that ends up costing a bundle. In addition, the Governor General also needs security guards. Money is being spent all over the place. For fiscal year 2019-20, which was a normal year, the operating costs amounted to $34 million, and that was for a Governor General who did not go out much or do very much, according to recent media reports. I would like to see the numbers for her predecessors, because I can imagine that being quite a hefty bill.

For a person who serves a symbolic function, I find that pretty pricey given that their main job is signing bills. I feel like maybe we do not need to spend $34 million on that.

In addition, as I pointed out earlier, former governors general receive a pension of $150,000 a year. Moreover, the spending does not end when the individual leaves the position, because former governors general have the right to quietly continue billing up to $100,000 a year. At some point, someone noticed that these expenses were hidden in a section of the Public Accounts of Canada labelled “temporary help services”, and it does not even say who requested this help. The best part is that these expenditures are referred to as temporary help services, yet former governors general receive their pensions for life and they have access to these help services for life. I just do not understand why this would be classified as temporary. Perhaps we will get an answer to that question one day.

On top of costing us $150,000 a year, former governors general gladly continue to invoice us for all kinds of office and moving expenses, in addition to expenses that may or may not be connected to their former duties as governor general. Imagine that a baseball club wants to invite a former governor general to hand out medals. There were media reports that former governor general Adrienne Clarkson has no problem invoicing the maximum $100,000 every year. That is how it works.

We have seen other similar cases in Quebec, including a former lieutenant governor, a position that is basically pointless and similar to the governor general's but at the Quebec level. A previous office holder, Lise Thibault, made a name for herself hosting a television show called De bien belles choses, or “very nice things”. In one episode, interestingly enough, she taught people how to entertain on a small budget. People were surprised by what happened later.

In my youth, throughout the 1990s, 2000s and even the early 2010s, I remember seeing reports on television and in the newspaper about all the overspending and excesses of people who served in roles similar to the lieutenant governor's. There were reports of misspending, auditor general investigations, National Assembly investigations, perhaps even House of Commons investigations. The individuals under investigation managed to get away with it every time.

Lise Thibault did not manage to get away with it, though she tried her best in court. She even went so far as to invoke the principle that “the Queen can do no wrong”, arguing that lieutenant governors are so royal that they too can do no wrong. Unfortunately, it did not work. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison for her 10 years of swindling taxpayers.

In the end, however, she never paid anyone back. The hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars she wasted were gone for good, even though that money belonged to the people working at McDonald's, at the local canteen, at the corner store or in shops. I am upset and frustrated by that. In my opinion, when we are looking for savings, we need to pay attention when spending that kind of money and think about the people working hard to pay for it.

It did not stop there, because then it was Michaëlle Jean's turn. She also made headlines for her expensive tastes and startling lifestyle, such as taking a limousine to travel just down the street. However, that was not enough, because after leaving office, she had to maintain her lifestyle. In addition to her pension, the government also decided to appoint her Secretary General of the International Organisation of La Francophonie, allowing her to travel the world by ship with some young people. I do not know whether that accomplished much in the end, but the government wanted to keep her active, at taxpayer expense once again.

Supposedly, she made Canada look good. Personally, I am not convinced that a person whose job is to organize parties, spend money and wave to people makes anyone look that good—