Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 195
View Mona Fortier Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mona Fortier Profile
2021-06-22 17:04 [p.8998]
Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 9, I move:
That the debate not be further adjourned.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am terribly disappointed with the conduct of the government, and Canadians should be as well. The Liberals rushed their Bill C-12 through to committee. The committee decided that it did not want to hear from Canadians and ignored the majority of the briefs. The MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, as well as members of the environment committee, were quite frankly ashamed to see Canadians ignored. Now, the government, because of its absolute mismanagement of the House calendar, is coming and invoking closure.
I cannot believe the New Democratic Party is going to be supporting this, but I wanted to ask how the government can justify using closure on a bill of this magnitude and denying the ability of parliamentarians on both sides of the House to hold the government to account.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, climate change is an extremely important subject, and we should all understand that. It is important not only that we have credible targets and plans, but that we have a commitment to achieving what science tells us we must, which is net zero by 2050.
This government has worked collaboratively with opposition members to come up with a strengthened bill that is best in class with respect to how these bills work around the world. We are very proud of this legislation. Certainly many Canadians desire to see it go forward, and while the Conservatives have delayed across the board a whole range of legislative options, it has been very much apparent from our side that we want to get it through the House to ensure that it is in place.
With respect to being ashamed, I would say that I am ashamed as a Canadian that there is a party in the House that is still unable to convince its own members that climate change is real.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed in how this government is governing. We were understanding during the pandemic, and the opposition parties worked with the government to implement exceptional measures.
However, it is not our fault if the government did a poor job of managing its parliamentary calendar and finds itself at the end of the session with dozens of bills to rush through. It is not giving us enough time to debate them, and that is just what is happening with Bill C‑12. We were hurried along in committee and did not get to improve it like we should have.
Why did the government not simply table it sooner?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and for being so concerned about climate change, which is a very important issue.
The government supported a Bloc Québécois amendment calling for a five-year review of the act and also included several elements of Bill C‑215 in Bill C‑12.
Canadians think it is very important for us to go ahead with this bill. We committed to passing a law to assure Canadians that all future governments will be required to meet the 2050 net-zero targets.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, this bill is not the legislation we would have written. However, it is stronger than it was and we believe that it should be passed into law.
I believe I just heard the minister state that Bill C-12 is best in class when it comes to international climate accountability legislation. The message we heard very clearly from some of Canada's most prominent environmental organizations at committee was that the bill did not measure up to the best examples of climate accountability around the world.
I wonder if the minister could provide some rationale for his statement. What evidence does he base his “best in class” statement on?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his constructive approach to working collaboratively to ensure that we are moving forward on a bill that I think we all agree is very important.
With respect to my statement, this bill has an enormous number of accountability mechanisms in it. Not only does it require progressively more stringent targets on the pathway to 2050, but there will be a range of progress reports, some of which were brought forward through amendments by the environment committee. There are reports with respect to what has been achieved, and requirements to essentially do more if we are short of our goals. There are third party accountability mechanisms through the environment commissioner. There is also now a milestone mechanism for 2026 to ensure that accountability starts tomorrow. That is all appropriate, as it should be, and it is a very strong piece of legislation.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-06-22 17:14 [p.8999]
Madam Speaker, Greta Thunberg has said that net zero by 2050 is “surrender”, and without tough near-term targets, we are abandoning our children and grandchildren to an unlivable world. Bill C-12 still lacks a 2025 milestone, which was established in the COP decision document that Canada signed on to, and all experts agree that 2030 is too late.
The NDP and Liberal amendment for a 2026 interim greenhouse gas emissions goal is not a milestone year, but provides a window to review progress or the lack of progress. Why did the government reject the Green Party amendment that the plans and targets must be based on the best available science?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, it is very important that we are guided by science. We are guided by the science and guidance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has indicated that countries need to achieve the net-zero target by 2050 if we are to keep the rise in average global temperature to less than 2°C, with a focus on 1.5°C. That is exactly what we are doing.
We established and announced our new target only a couple of months ago, and we announced it alongside those of our G7 partners. The G7 is now aligned with science on net zero by 2050, which is aligned with science relative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is extremely important that we are taking the steps we must take to ensure that our children will inhabit and inherit a livable world. I agree with what the member said.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-22 17:16 [p.8999]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's efforts in bringing forward this legislation. I think it is very reflective of what Canadians in all regions from coast to coast to coast want to see of the government. They want us to have ambitious goals and strive to achieve them.
Can the minister reinforce why it is so important that we see this very progressive piece of legislation move forward? Ultimately, I know that the residents of Winnipeg North, and indeed Canadians as a whole, want a government that is serious about the environment.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, this is part of a comprehensive approach to addressing climate change. Of course, part of it is establishing a near-term target and a plan to actually meet that target. This government has done that and provided a plan to achieve our goals. We are the first government in Canada that has provided a detailed pathway, and I would say that our climate plan is one of the most detailed plans that exist anywhere in the world.
Of course, we need to have a forcing function on governments going forward to ensure that they are continuing to be transparent and accountable to Canadians on the pathway toward what science tells us we must achieve, which is net zero by 2050. We will never again have a government in this country like Stephen Harper's, which had a target and never had a plan. There will be a forcing function going forward, and it will ensure that all political parties and all governments take this issue seriously.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Speaker, we are here debating closure on a very important topic. It is top of mind for all Canadians. As we have already heard other members say, the bill was rammed through committee and the government did not consider all the reports at committee. I am on the natural resources committee. We have been hearing from numerous witnesses across multiple studies that the government does not even have complete data on the amount of carbon that we sequester here, and there does not appear to be any commitment to make sure we are getting that data.
What is going to be done to make sure this will be achieved as we move toward the path that the government is ramming through on Canadians?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, there were a couple of questions there. Canadians are anxious to see progress made. We lost 10 years under Stephen Harper, when nothing was done to address the climate issue, and it is important to keep going given that we must make rapid progress between now and 2030 if we are to achieve net zero by 2050.
With respect to carbon issues, there are methodologies under the IPCC that focus on how we account for various kinds of carbon sequestration and for carbon emissions, and they are done on an international basis, as they must be to ensure that there is comparability between states.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2021-06-22 17:19 [p.8999]
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois does not agree with the use of closure. This is nothing new.
The minister said earlier that the government had accepted amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Let me just set the record straight. We tabled only one of the 33 amendments, and the Liberals still found a way to vote against it.
The Bloc Québécois opposed the clause mentioning targets because it was outraged by the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage told the House and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change told the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that they would include quantified targets in Bill C‑12, yet they did not keep their word.
The fact remains that Bill C‑12 was tabled in November and reached the committee in mid-May. If they thought it was urgent, why did the minister and his government not speed up the process? They had all of December, plus the period from February to May, to do that.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.
The Bloc Québécois amendment provided for a five-year review of the act. We also included several elements of Bill C‑215 in the bill.
There are a lot of things we agree on. Of course climate change is a crisis. We must fight climate change, and we have to act very quickly, because we do not have much time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We want the bill to include measures to fight climate change that will be binding on all future governments.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, the minister has spoken many times about the importance of the climate crisis and the importance of taking action, yet here we are, just one day before the House rises for the summer, trying to get this important bill through the House.
The government controls the legislative calendar. This bill was introduced last November and only came to the environment committee in May. Could the minister explain how we got to this point at which the House is considering these extraordinary motions in order to pass this important legislation?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, as I have said, the issue of climate change is urgent. The House even adopted a motion some time ago saying that it was a climate emergency. There is a lot of agreement between most of the political parties in the House not only with respect to the need to act, but with respect to a number of the instruments that we need to use to act, one of them being this law.
Certainly we are focused very much on ensuring that this law is put into place so that it will be a forcing function on all governments going forward to ensure that we are taking climate change seriously. I have been very pleased to work collaboratively on this with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Victoria. It is important for us, before we finish our session, to ensure that it is in place.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, the minister said in the House at second reading of Bill C-12 that he was willing to work with all considerations from other parties. We asked for industry representation on the advisory board and he said he was open to that. Then he said that the Liberals were open to working with all parties regarding amendments. He also said that the Liberals supported a Bloc motion to have parliamentary review, which was not true. It was not something that happened. The Liberals voted against it. Today in the House, he said that there was an NDP milestone amendment, but the Green Party representative said this was not factual either.
Why are the minister and his party constantly in contradiction with the actual truth? Are we are having closure right now because they want to evade all accountability and pretend they are taking action on climate? Why does the minister always have to correct himself when he is found out?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, the hon. member needs to ensure that he has done his homework.
I can run through the industry representation on the net-zero advisory body. It includes Peter Tertzakian, the deputy director of ARC Energy Research Institute; John Wright, former president of SaskPower; Linda Coady, who is a vice-president at Enbridge; Gaëtan Thomas, former CEO at NB Power; and Dan Wicklum, who is the founding CEO of the Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. What the hon. member said in the House is therefore not true.
With respect to being open to working with others, we actually have demonstrated that. We worked collaboratively with other parties. The hon. member will remember that even though he said he was going to support this bill early on, he opposed it at second reading, which means he opposed the principle of the bill. That is not a very good basis for working together with respect to amendments. However, we found a manner to work collaboratively with other members on the committee to ensure that we strengthened the bill, and it is a very strong bill.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I rise with some emotion and pride because my son, Léon, has just completed elementary school in Rouyn-Noranda. I would like to congratulate him, his classmates and the teaching staff at Sacré-Coeur school.
I have a question for the—
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
When I think of my son and of Bill C‑12, I wonder: If one day he has the opportunity to sit in the House, will he be forced to participate in the same debates we are having today?
How does the minister, who I believe also has children, see the future of this debate if the fiscal anchors are not mandatory? Are we not letting this opportunity slip by? What concrete steps should we be taking for the sake of our children?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his son's success.
I do in fact have two daughters, which is perhaps the main reason I got into politics. I think this is a very important issue for all members in the House, but perhaps even more so for those with children.
We have worked very hard to have a very strong piece of legislation that will ensure that future governments understand the importance of climate change and continue to take action to fight it. I fully agree with my colleague.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservatives, it would seem that they are totally surprised by the fact that we had to bring this motion, so that we could move along with things. The reality is that, if we are being fair, over the last several months there has been a continuous logjam of trying to put legislation on the agenda for various different reasons, whether it is filibustering over various points of order or not letting the House proceed with its normal course of business by using other procedural tactics.
The reality is that this bill, which was introduced in the fall, was debated. It passed second reading in April. It was then at committee. Committee has now reported back because of the programming motion. Now it is back before this House. Yesterday, the minister gave notice that this motion would be coming forward, so nobody should be surprised that this is coming forward today.
I cannot think of an issue that requires more immediate attention and disclosure than an issue with respect to the environment. Can the minister comment on how incredibly important it is that we deal with this now before the House rises for this session?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, this is extremely important. As I said, we are living in a climate crisis. It is critical that Canada have a plan to move forward, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and seize the economic opportunities that will come for countries that are thoughtful about transitioning to a low-carbon future.
We do not have a lot of time both between now and 2030, but also between now and 2050, because we are talking about a very significant change in how we make products, drive cars, do all kinds of different things. It is absolutely critical that we do that. I do think that the kinds of things that we have seen, unfortunately from the Conservative Party, in terms of delaying legislation, have led us to the point where we actually are forcing this conversation very quickly because of the crisis.
At the end of the day, I have been telling parents' groups, and I have been telling environmental organizations that if they want this to move forward, they have to talk to the leader of the opposition's office and tell them how important it is.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
View Matthew Green Profile
2021-06-22 17:29 [p.9001]
Madam Speaker, I was intent on sitting out this debate, but having heard the previous speaker's comments about the filibustering, I could not stand for that.
I want to raise this through you to the hon. minister. What I heard from the previous speaker, quite frankly, is balderdash. If this was important to the hon. minister, then why did it take him until April to bring it forward, and why are they leaving it until this very last day to push it through?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, climate change has been an enormous priority of this government from the day that it was sworn in almost two years ago. We have developed the strengthened climate plan, which is the first plan that Canadians have ever had that shows in a detailed way how to achieve and exceed the existing target. We made additional investments in the budget. We have worked closely with our American colleagues and we significantly raised the level of ambition with the target that we established at the earth summit.
We are moving forward with a plan to address carbon emissions not just at 2030, but to 2050, with a net-zero target through this legislation. It is complementary to all of the work that we have done.
There is no higher priority for this government, beyond getting through this pandemic and supporting Canadians through this pandemic, than fighting climate change in a manner that is going to secure the future for our kids and ensure that we have a strong and thriving economy going forward.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, the minister continues the myth that this has been about Conservatives filibustering this bill. There was barely six hours of debate when they jammed this through to committee, and then the committee decided to accelerate it, so 70 plus briefs were not even considered before amendments. The minister favours an approach of not listening. Now he is putting down closure. He is actually stopping members of his own caucus from being able to talk about an important piece of legislation.
Why does the minister have such contempt for the voices, other than those of his own government, in this chamber?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, I find that a very odd line of questioning. This bill, as I understand it, has a majority support of members in this chamber. It is something most of the political parties in this House, with perhaps the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, believe is important as a step forward in addressing it.
I was very heartened when the hon. member actually stood up at the beginning of this conversation and said they would support this bill. I was very disappointed when they then decided to vote against the principle of this bill, as I was extremely disappointed when members of their party voted to say that climate change was not real. It is unfortunate, and at some point the Conservative Party is going to have to get with the program in addressing climate change.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, it is absolutely staggering to hear the government say that we are in a climate emergency. It was an emergency in April, February and all the other months. We have been dealing with a climate emergency for a long time.
If this were so important to the Liberals, they would have put the bill on the agenda much sooner. I hear the NDP saying that they would not have written it that way. That is for sure, because it was obviously the Liberals who wrote the amendments that the NDP tabled in committee. It is because of the Liberal-NDP coalition that we are left to pass a bill that is limp and non-binding.
Now the government is telling us that if we are progressive, we must vote for the bill. We are being asked to vote for something that could have been better. Why did they not put it on the agenda sooner?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I should say that we have included several elements of Bill C‑215 in Bill C‑12.
However, Bill C‑12 is much stronger than Bill C‑215, which was introduced in the House by the Bloc. Bill C‑215 aims for a target of 30% below 2005 levels. That is only a 30% reduction, whereas the targets in this bill are 40% to 45%, which is much stronger.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-06-22 17:34 [p.9002]
Madam Speaker, two years ago this House declared we were in a climate emergency and it took until November for the government to table this bill, which, when read, looked like no more than a public relations document pretending to be doing something. There is no accountability in this bill; it is hollow. I could not support it at second reading, because there is no principle behind it.
When it came to actually getting it into committee after a very short debate, most of the briefs arrived after the amendment period was over. It made a mockery of listening to concerned citizens. There was no youth or indigenous representation and no climate science testimony. Not a single indigenous witness was heard.
How often can the Liberals say they did not have time to consult indigenous people, while also saying that Bill C-12 respects UNDRIP?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, to argue a lack of accountability mechanisms in the bill, I would just suggest to my hon. colleague that he read the bill again.
It is a legally binding process for the federal government to set climate targets and to bring forward plans every five years, three different progress reports between now and 2030, a 2030 assessment report that has to be tabled within 30 days of the 2030 national inventory report, an annual report detailing how the federal government is managing financial risks of climate change, each year the minister has to respond to the report of the net-zero advisory body and the Minister of Environment has asked, and the bill requires, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development provide a report by the end of 2024. There is an enormous number of accountability mechanisms, and I just would ask my colleague to review the legislation again.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question, and I would appreciate a clear, concise answer from the minister.
If this motion is carried, and Bill C-12 eventually becomes law, who will ultimately be held accountable for Canada meeting its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, ultimately we live in a democratic society, and it is the government that is going to have to be held accountable for its ability to live up to the commitments it makes under this law.
What this law requires is an enormous amount of transparency and accountability through all of the measures I just mentioned, and it provides the information on which the voters of this country, who are the ones who will make the decision about how urgent and how important this issue is, as they rightly should in a democratic society, will make the decision.
As I said before, we will never again in this country have a government like that of Stephen Harper, which essentially set a target, pretended it was an issue, pretended it was important, but never had a plan and never made progress.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I declare the motion carried.
It being 6:20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
View Mona Fortier Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mona Fortier Profile
2021-06-21 18:46 [p.8888]
Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 10, I move, seconded by the Minister of Canadian Heritage:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 18:47 [p.8888]
Madam Speaker, here we are again to talk about the infamous Bill C‑10. We know that this bill has a direct impact on freedom of speech.
We were surprised to see that the bill originally contained a fundamental provision, clause 4.1, which clearly defined the terms of freedom of speech and clearly indicated that this bill would not affect those working on social media when it came time to produce and post music or cultural activities.
Unfortunately, the government withdrew that amendment. Members will recall that the second opposition party asked for that clause to be reinstated three times. When we proposed that amendment, the government and the second opposition party opposed it.
How can the government introduce a bill that does not protect freedom of expression as it should, particularly since that protection used to be set out in the bill in black and white?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I would like to remind him of certain facts.
First, several members of his political party asked us to go even further with Bill C‑10. We heard the same thing from an impressive number of stakeholders from across Canada, who told us that now that a company like YouTube has become the biggest distributor of music in Canada, it has to be included in Bill C‑10. We did that.
The Department of Justice's highly independent and competent officials testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. They carried out an analysis that demonstrated there are no issues with freedom of expression and Bill C‑10. In the bill, there are elements that provide for freedom of expression, freedom of creation and freedom of the press. My colleague opposite is also very aware of that.
Furthermore, the CRTC is not above Canadian law. The CRTC must also comply with Canada's many laws, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-06-21 18:50 [p.8888]
Madam Speaker, time allocation is rarely acceptable. The Bloc Québécois defends the interests of Quebeckers. We have been saying so since we first got here, and we have never deviated from that guiding principle.
Bill C‑10 has unanimous support in Quebec. Quebeckers agree. Quebec's artistic and cultural community, the very essence of our own identity, is waiting. It has supported the bill for a long time now. The Bloc Québécois will support this time allocation motion to make web giants pay their fair share to our creators, who have often been taken advantage of by these giants.
I would like to ask the minister a very simple question: Do you think waiting is costly for our Quebec creators?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, through you, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the aisle for his question and for his party's support for Bill C‑10.
He is quite right. This bill has the unanimous support of the Quebec National Assembly and the vast majority of artists. In fact, several thousand artists and organizations representing hundreds of thousands of artists in Quebec, of course, but also across the country, signed a petition in support of Bill C‑10.
My colleague is right about the wait. Every month that goes by deprives artists of $70 million. Some say that even if Bill C‑10 were to pass, it would not come into force immediately. I agree, but every month that the implementation of Bill C‑10 is delayed means $70 million less for our artists and arts organizations.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Speaker, I am rather shocked to see just how poorly the Liberals have managed this file. Based on the Yale report, we all agree that the web giants need to be included in the ecosystem. There is no issue there. That is not what is being debated.
The Liberal government imposed a gag order on a committee. That has happened just three times in 150 years. The gag order was for five hours, not even 10. They managed to impose it, which is very rare, but it was not enough. They still managed to drop the ball when they extended the proceedings to pass certain amendments, which were ultimately rejected by a ruling of the Speaker of the House.
Today, the Liberals moved a supermotion. Our issue is not with the substance of this bill, which is to protect culture and artists.
How are the Liberals incapable of passing a bill like this, even after imposing a gag order in committee? It is unbelievable.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, what I find shocking and what the artistic community cannot understand is that the NDP refuses to support Bill C‑10 and that it has sided with the Conservative Party.
I do not think anyone is surprised to see the Conservative Party do this, but I must admit that it is a surprise and a major disappointment to see the NDP follow suit.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-06-21 18:53 [p.8889]
Madam Speaker, the bill has been flawed from the beginning, and we have worked pretty hard at committee to try to fix it with over 120 amendments. The discussion around freedom of expression and whether the small online undertakings are responsible for the content that is uploaded comes down to a question of what is already in the Broadcasting Act. The act, which is from 1991, says, “This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.”
Does that include the content that is uploaded by users of social media platforms? Has the minister looked into this to see that the constitutionality of the bill would stand up, or are we going to see challenges to the bill under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for freedom of expression?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I have had numerous exchanges about Bill C-10, and I know he is very passionate about this. Again, I would remind the hon. member that the very credible, very competent and very independent civil servants of the Ministry of Justice have looked into this issue and provided analysis and testimonies to accompany them to the heritage committee, and that confirmed that there is no issue regarding Bill C-10 and freedom of expression or freedom of creation.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2021-06-21 18:56 [p.8889]
Madam Speaker, I think of some of the stuff we have heard, particularly from the Conservative opposition. I believe it was the member for Lethbridge who stated that the modernization of the Broadcasting Act was about supporting a niche lobby group and supporting artists or creators who cannot sell. I think the quote was about creating things that Canadians did not want to watch.
Perhaps it might be helpful if you would explain for us why are we doing this? Who is this supporting, and are they not the kinds of creations that Canadians do in fact want to watch and enjoy, and that create jobs right across our country?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her advocacy for artists and cultural organizations across the country.
It is important to remember that as more and more people transit from watching or listening to their music in more traditional ways to online streaming platforms, the revenues of Canadian traditional broadcasters are going down. As a society, we count on these revenues to fund our artists and our cultural sector for productions like Kim's Convenience, which has been a worldwide hit. In fact, it was one of the most-watched shows for a while in South Korea. We could be talking about Schitt's Creek, or Corner Gas or District 31. All these productions have received government support through the Broadcasting Act.
What we are doing right now is ensuring our legislation and regulations are adapted to the realities of the 21st century, and ensuring web giants pay their fair share. Why the Conservatives, and it seems sometimes the NDP, would be opposed to that is a bit beyond me.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
View Alain Rayes Profile
2021-06-21 18:58 [p.8889]
Madam Speaker, ever since the minister introduced Bill C-10 in November, everyone has been trying to improve it, despite its flaws. It did not address copyrights or CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, and it was missing a lot of things to protect Canadian businesses and domestic French-language and Canadian productions.
Everyone tried to compromise to find a solution and improve the bill up until one Friday afternoon when the minister withdrew clause 4.1, which was supposed to be added to the Broadcasting Act, going after the content of social media users.
My question for the minister and the Liberals is quite simple. Despite the gag order that the government imposed on us in committee and the fact that the Chair called the government to order by ruling many amendments out of order at committee stage—amendments that we will be voting on this evening—will the government agree to vote in favour of reinserting clause 4.1 into the legislation to protect the content of social media users, whatever it might be?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, for starters, I have to refute the premise of my hon. colleague's question.
He says that everyone worked in good faith, but I just want to remind him that, well before Bill C‑10 was even introduced, the former leader of the official opposition told the House that, had it been up to him, he would have tossed the Yale report, which had just been tabled, right in the trash. Furthermore, as soon as Bill C‑10 was introduced, the Conservative Party objected to it, said the bill was bad and should be scrapped, and told us to start over.
In my opinion, there is no truth to the claim that everyone worked in good faith to move Bill C‑10 forward.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-06-21 19:00 [p.8890]
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the minister may be quite confused. He keeps saying that he does not quite understand the NDP position in not voting with his government to push this through Parliament. The New Democrats have been clear. We are very supportive of getting help to our artists and we are supportive of Bill C-10. However, perhaps what the minister does not understand is the role Parliament plays in our parliamentary system, similar to the way the minister did not seem to really understand how broadcasting worked or, in fact, how his own bill worked before he tabled it.
We can be supportive of legislation and also find it very problematic to watch the way the minister has managed this file and is now trying to shove it through Parliament without giving parliamentarians time to get this bill right. I have offered time and again to work through the summer, to do whatever we need to do to get this bill through, and the minister just keeps asking why we will not support the Liberal time allocation. How is that respecting Parliament?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to answer for the hon. colleague. The first is that I was with the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP on Tout le monde en parle, during which all three of us committed to work together to ensure Bill C-10 would be adopted. Right after that, the NDP changed its mind, after committing in front of millions of Quebeckers and Canadians that the NDP would work with us to ensure that Bill C-10 would be adopted. Was that a lie to the Canadian public and to the viewers of this show, I do not know.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of artists support Bill C-10 and want it to be adopted. In fact, thousands of artists have signed a petition in favour of the bill. What the NDP is telling them and the chamber is that the NDP knows best, that artists do not know or understand. We have chosen to listen to artists, not the other way around.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what is going on with the New Democrats. They are lucky that the Bloc Québécois blinked first. That is the reality of the situation. They are trying to play both sides of this. They will not vote for the closure, but, of course, when we get to the vote on the bill itself, they will vote in favour of it because they know it would be political suicide to do otherwise. That is the reality of the situation.
We have now had this issue go before committee numerous times. It has been in the House. It has been in the public forum. Would the minister not agree that closure is necessary because of the antics put forward by the Conservative Party, in particular? Quite frankly, now is the time for members to put their stake in the sand and decide which side of the line they are on. Are they on the side of artists or on the side of big tech?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, frankly, I could not have said it better. Members stand with artists or with big tech, some of the largest and wealthiest companies on this planet. We have decided that we are on the side of artists. Clearly the Conservatives have decided they are on the side of big tech. As for the New Democrats, I do not know and I am not sure they know themselves.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2021-06-21 19:05 [p.8890]
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am quite concerned about, and it is unprecedented, as we have never seen this before, is around the secret amendments at committee. The minister went on and on about how Conservatives spoke favourably about the bill when it was originally introduced and quoted us before the bill went to committee. However, amendments happened at committee. I saw on Twitter that Mr. Geist talked about secret amendments. This has been unprecedented.
Would the minister not agree with me that the bill has been fraught with issues from the get-go, particularly in committee, and the secret amendments that the Speaker had to rule on have been unprecedented in my time here and definitely not the epitome of being well managed?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, first, the Conservative Party's position was that the bill did not go far enough, that we needed to do more and include, according to some of the member's colleagues, companies like YouTube. Then it decided to move the needle and said that it was about freedom of speech. Then when the justice department said that there was no issue with freedom of speech, the Conservatives moved the needle again and said that it was about net neutrality. When it was explained what net neutrality was and the fact that Bill C-10 had nothing to do with net neutrality, they moved the dial again and said that it was these secret amendments.
Every time we have spoken about the bill, the Conservatives have been against it. They have clearly decided that they are siding with Google, Facebook and some of the wealthiest companies in the world. We have seen the contempt, which are not my words but the words of many artists, that the Conservative Party has shown to artists and our cultural sector.
View Kerry Diotte Profile
CPC (AB)
View Kerry Diotte Profile
2021-06-21 19:07 [p.8891]
Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that in the minister's reality, this is all about artists, but to the real world, the non-Liberal world perhaps, to everybody I talk to about Bill C-10, it is about censorship, it is about what people can post on the Internet. It is the fear of government interference. We have seen big tech already clamping down on free speech. People are terrified of what Bill C-10 will bring.
I was giving a talk to a grade six class, and those children are worried about it. It seems like the whole world knows that this is all about censorship, but the minister thinks it is all about artists. We love artists, but this has nothing really to do about artists. The fear is censorship.
What would the minister say to these grade six children who are worried about their free speech because of the bill?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the member said, “we love artists”, which is interesting. When the Conservatives were in government, all they did was cut back on programs for artists, including, but not solely, the CBC. I would remind the member that the CBC is one of the largest broadcasters and supporters of artistic creation in the country.
However, every time we have brought forward proposals to help and support artists, the Conservatives have opposed it. I am having a really hard time reconciling the affirmation that they “love artists” with their actions. One could argue that actions actually speak louder than words.
View Tim Louis Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Tim Louis Profile
2021-06-21 19:09 [p.8891]
Mr. Speaker, I sit on the heritage committee, and for months I watched our Conservative colleagues side with these Internet giants and against our Canadian artists, many times bringing up that misleading narrative about censorship or concerns of free speech. Artists are fierce defenders of free speech.
Could the minister explain how modernizing the Broadcasting Act will help level the playing field for our Canadian artists and support them, while also ensuring that Canadians who use social media platforms are not subject to regulation?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy as a member of the heritage committee and also as an artist himself for many years.
The member is absolutely right. There is this idea that the only people concerned with free speech in the country are the Conservatives. Artists have for decades, if not centuries, defended freedom of speech. The idea that they would all of a sudden forget about this just because they are in favour of Bill C-10 makes absolutely no sense. There are a number of safeguards in Bill C-10, and we have heard from Department of Justice, as well as in the body of the laws and regulations we have in Canada. The CRTC is not above the law.
Bill C-10 would not apply to individuals, and it says that very clearly in the bill right now.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-06-21 19:11 [p.8891]
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot from the minister about protecting artists and ensuring they are taken care of when they are up against the big giants.
I put forward a couple of amendments, one that was debated and one that was not debated because of the time allocation. They called for the establishment of a framework for the contractual practices between independent producers who produce a lot of stuff for the broadcast industry and the online program undertakings of the big companies. This was identified in the Yale Report, that there is a huge power imbalance between these small contractors and producers and the big companies. They have a system like this in the U.K. and in France, and it works very well.
The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions has called for this as have the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada and the Canadian Media Producers Association. If the government is interested in defending independent producers and small production companies, how come it did not support my amendments?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind my hon. colleague that the organizations he mentioned, on top of the independent producers, have all come out in support of Bill C-10 and are all calling for its rapid adoption.
Bill C-10 will not solve everything. There are other issues we have to address when it comes to broadcasting and creation, and we will. However, Bill C-10 is a first step in that direction. It is not everything under the sun, but it is a first and very important step in the right direction.
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
View Damien Kurek Profile
2021-06-21 19:13 [p.8891]
Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to ask the minister a couple of very important questions. First, I would ask him to correct the record because it has been made very clear that not all artists support Bill C-10. In fact, I have heard from many, and I know that other colleagues have, including those who have reached out to the minister directly, that they do not support Bill C-10, so that is misleading and incorrect rhetoric that he is speaking to.
Further, I would suggest that the minister should be careful how he references things because we saw time and again how he might say one thing on Sunday afternoon television and then his office would have to clarify and correct the record the next day. He would say one thing in question period and another thing at committee. I am curious which minister is actually speaking to us today, because there seems to be a lot of confusion from his office or from himself regarding Bill C-10.
There is one question I would really like to get an answer to. He talked about the example of Kim's Convenience being an epitome for Canadian success, whereas a recent report suggested that anti-Asian stereotypes were perpetrated through the production and what was in part government funding of that sitcom on Canadian television.
Does the minister support that sort of stereotypes being a part of Canadian culture and in his approach to legislating culture in this country?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, many would recognize that our government has done more for inclusion and diversity than any other governments before us. I would be the first one to recognize that we have a long way to go and we have so much more to do, but at least we are doing it.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question again in the House on the topic of Bill C-10, unfortunately not dealing with the subject of Bill C-10, but dealing with the issue of ramming it through the House.
Recently, we saw the government guilty of trying to ram through a bunch of amendments, much to the surprise of many of us here who respect the process, respect committee work and yet again, we see the government time after time simply trying to sidestep the parliamentary process. We saw that example today again in the House, where the health officer who was supposed to produce documents as requested by the House still refused to do it, on the advice of the government.
With such an important bill as Bill C-10, why does the minister feel he needs to ram it through the House?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the committee has had months and months to study Bill C-10 and in fact, before the Conservative Party started filibustering the work of the committee, things were going pretty well, but at one point the Conservatives decided that they would prefer to side with Google and Facebook instead of supporting Canadian artists, and then it was impossible to move the bill along. We could have had six more months of committee work and we would not have been able to get through Bill C-10 at the committee.
As I reminded members earlier, every month that passes deprives our artists and cultural sector of $70 million that is kept in the pockets of some of the wealthiest and most powerful companies in the world.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-06-21 19:17 [p.8892]
Mr. Speaker, we have legislation that was brought forward in November. We know the government chooses which legislation to bring onto the floor. That is well within its purview. There are now two days left until the House rises for the summer, potentially for this Parliament. Why are we voting on amendments that could have been dealt with much sooner and much more effectively if the government had brought the bill to the House sooner? The Liberals have been in power for six years. Why are we doing this with two days left, pushing it through, voting on amendments in the middle of the night?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am baffled by the question from the member. She refuses to support us and help us move Bill C-10 along, but when we do, she says, oh my goodness, why are we waiting until the last minute? We have been trying for many, many weeks to move the bill along, and if the NDP had helped us, maybe we would not be in this situation to start with.
View Mona Fortier Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mona Fortier Profile
2021-06-21 21:07 [p.8896]
Mr. Speaker, with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 9, I give notice that:
At the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 10, I wish to give notice that at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.
View Catherine McKenna Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day here in the House of Commons.
The Syndicat des débardeurs du port de Montréal has been trying for years to negotiate in good faith, but five big companies belonging to the Maritime Employers Association, with combined assets in the hundreds of billions of dollars, refuse to play ball.
The Liberals claim to be on the side of workers, but they are abandoning them today and imposing an agreement that these unionized workers already democratically rejected.
Why is it that the Liberals always support unions and workers up until the interests of the employers are at stake? Why are the Liberals imposing this special legislation instead of letting the union's good-faith negotiations play out?
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I wish to reply to the hon. member's question in a number of ways.
Our government has been there every step of the way on this. The date I begin with is October 11, 2018. That is when the government appointed a conciliation officer on this matter. Then, on December 11, 2018, two federal mediators were appointed. Therefore, the federal government has been there every step of the way, trying to assist the parties to reach an agreement. I want to thank the conciliation officers and mediators. We have been there for the workers.
With respect to the impact on workers, we understand this is very difficult. I have said a number of times in the House that this is our least favourite option, but we are taking this step because of the dire situation we are in. This is an impact on—
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-04-28 15:42 [p.6304]
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is sad to see special legislation being pushed through to put an end to discussions between employers and employees.
Workers are not being allowed to exercise their right to strike. Worse still is the federal government's failure to take action on this issue. It has done nothing for the past eight months. The Prime Minister has been nowhere to be found. He left everyone hanging when this dispute could have easily been resolved if he had shown some leadership. That is unfortunately not what he did, so here we are.
As a member of Parliament, I am sad that the government announced this special legislation in advance, which pushed everyone in this direction.
Are they not a little embarrassed about this situation?
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, first let me say that we have taken action. I have just said that since October 11, 2018 we have been engaged on this file. We have appointed two mediators. In February, I took the extra step of appointing two senior-level mediators on this file, and we have had conversations with both employer and employees saying that we really need them to reach an agreement at the table and we want to provide all the supports we can to get them there.
The second thing is with respect to the member's allegation that there is no dialogue. The dialogue is going to continue. Mediation is going to continue. This legislation would actually allow the parties 21 days to continue that mediation, 14 days with an option for an extension of seven days. We want the parties to come to an agreement with the assistance of the mediator, and we encourage them to do that.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, could the minister advise the House when and how she first communicated to the parties about her intention to bring in back-to-work legislation?
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I would say that we have been very clear with the parties from day one. We have told the parties that we are going to support them but we want them to come to an agreement at the table. We know that is the best resolution of this. We have told them we are going to provide them with those supports, and that is exactly what we have done. We have repeated those messages through a number of phone calls and dialogues that we have had with both parties, because we wanted the parties to reach an agreement at the table, and we still do. That is the message we are still giving.
The mediator is still available. We want the parties to come to an agreement at the table. This legislation would help mediation continue.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-04-28 15:45 [p.6304]
Madam Speaker, like the minister, I would prefer not to have to take this legislative route, but I do not believe we are offered any other solutions.
I have reported to the minister that I have been hearing from the agricultural community and fertilizer companies that fertilizer crop protection products are tied up in the Port of Montreal. If they do not get delivered, we will have a disaster on the ground in terms of crop production in Atlantic Canada.
Has the minister heard those same kinds of concerns, and is that part of the reason why this must be done?
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. In fact, the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture has written to me talking about the dire consequences this will cause if farmers do not receive the seed and the fertilizer. They want to get their crops planted. This will have an impact on the food that is produced for Canadians across this country.
In addition, I have heard from ministers in both Ontario and Quebec indicating the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be impacted by the work stoppage at the port. We do not want these workers to lose their jobs. We want these workers to continue and we want the parties, of course, to come to an agreement.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Yves Perron Profile
2021-04-28 15:46 [p.6305]
Madam Speaker, the situation has grown tragic, as it often does.
I have been an MP for scarcely a year and a half, not even two. We continually find ourselves faced with a government that fails to take action, waits for the situation to become explosive and then drives us into a corner. Naturally, everyone agrees that the Port of Montreal must reopen. However, we are in this situation today because the government failed to take action in the past.
Today, at a media scrum, my leader said that the solution is very simple. The Prime Minister must pick up the phone, call the employer and explain that the special legislation, assuming it has not changed, will prohibit any unilateral changes to the work schedules set out in the current collective agreement. If the Prime Minister does that and the employer stops that practice, we have a written guarantee from the union that the workers will return to work tomorrow morning. That resolution is even better than special legislation, as it does not trample on workers' rights and shows the Prime Minister and the government that it is possible to get results by being proactive.
Why did we not take those steps? Why do we not do it now? It is 3:47 p.m., so there is still time.
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Let me be very clear: We have engaged on this file, and I have said the date, since October 11, 2018. Mediators have been there. There have been over 100 negotiation sessions that have taken place that were mediated through the federal mediator who was present at the table. In February, I appointed additional mediators, two senior-level mediators. We have communicated to the parties on an ongoing basis.
The reality is that the parties have not been able to come to an agreement and progress has not been made. The situation now is dire and consequences are going to be very hurtful for Canadians across this country, both economic, with an estimated amount of $40 million to $100 million per week, as well as the health and safety of Canadians with respect to goods and products that we have to get to Canadians, particularly in the environment of a pandemic, where supply chains have already been compromised.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, one thing has to be very clear. When it comes to workers and unions, their only real power is the right to withhold their labour when it comes to situations like this. The government is choosing this draconian step and removing that one key power that workers have.
Is the minister not aware of the cruel symbolism of her being the Minister of Labour and introducing this measure on April 28, a day when the whole country is supposed to be coming together to mourn workers who have been in workplace accidents? Is she not aware of the cruel irony of introducing such a measure today of all days?
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for acknowledging that today is the day to mourn workers who have been injured, lost their lives or suffered illnesses in the workplace. I am happy to say that the federal government has put a number of measures in place to help protect workers and keep them safe. In fact, during this pandemic, that has been my number one priority.
With respect to workers, we understand the impact this is having on workers. In fact, I have a letter before me from the ministers in Ontario and Quebec, the economic ministers as well as the labour ministers, and the numbers of workers who will be impacted as a result of the stoppage of work is 215,000 employees in Montreal and 273,000 workers in Ontario.
I would say to the member that this situation is dire. The impact is deep. We have to take action. Of course, the preferred course is to have the parties come to an agreement. This legislation is going to allow mediation to continue, as I said, for up to 21 days. The message still remains that we want the parties to come to an agreement at the table and—
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I know the minister has a history of being part of the labour movement, particularly in the riding she represents. I know she would not do this unless she felt it was absolutely necessary to take this course of action.
She just talked about the number of jobs that would be directly impacted by this action if the stoppage was to occur. Could she highlight the economic impact of this, especially in light of the fact that we are currently going through very challenging times with the pandemic?
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, there is no question that Hamilton has a proud history with the labour movement. I am the daughter of a proud steelworker, and I very much value the labour movement and the values that it has espoused throughout its efforts, such as fairness and a number of other things.
However, moving forward, the economic harm here is estimated to be $40 million to $100 million per week. In addition to that, we are talking about the health and safety of Canadians across this country who are relying on goods that are now not able to go through the port. Diversion is happening and a lot of complicating factors are causing goods not to be shipped. I am hearing not only from businesses but from individuals, including farmers and those who are delivering medicine and dialysis equipment for—
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-04-28 15:53 [p.6305]
Madam Speaker, it is ironic that today, April 28, is a day when we mourn workers who lost their lives or were injured on the job.
The right to strike is fundamental. It is the tool that unionized workers have when negotiations fail, and these workers have been negotiating in good faith. Back-to-work legislation lets the companies off the hook.
It is really unfortunate that it has come to this situation. I understand that there are a lot of economic implications to this, but I am wondering whether the government could have done more in advance to avoid this situation.
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the concerns he has raised. I share the concerns in terms of supporting collective bargaining, and we have done that. I want to assure the member that we have been there since 2018. We have offered the support of mediators. I appointed two extra mediators in February to help the parties reach an agreement. We have been in communication with the parties, urging them.
I cannot impress upon members enough that this situation is dire. There is the economic impact, as well as the health and safety of Canadians, which has been exacerbated by the pandemic. The supply chains are critical, and we have to keep goods moving. This is really a situation where, for the health and safety of Canadians and the economy, we must take this action.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2021-04-28 15:54 [p.6306]
Madam Speaker, the general strike began when the employer took a clearly provocative action defying long-established conventions around workplace conditions and hours of work. There is not a lot of evidence that the government felt there was any sense of urgency there, or picked up the phone to ask why the employer was doing this and making the situation worse. I mean, it is the least that the government could have done.
Meanwhile, this is the kind of action that one would expect an employer who knew that a government was willing to step in with back-to-work legislation might undertake in order to get the government to act and end negotiations with legislation. This just has stink written all over it in terms of the way the government has intervened.
There was a question earlier that did not get answered, about whom the government informed when. When did it inform either party as to its readiness to bring in back-to-work legislation? I would like a clear answer from the minister on which sides in the negotiations knew that the government was prepared to introduce this kind of legislation and when they knew it.
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, again, we have been involved since October 11, 2018. We have been monitoring the situation. We then put extra mediators. I appointed two extra mediators to put at the table in February. Notwithstanding that, the parties have negotiated. We have been in communication with the parties, myself, the Minister of Transport and other ministers, encouraging them to come to a resolution. We want that deal to be made at the table.
Notwithstanding that, the reality is that little progress was made. The parties were nowhere close to an agreement. The harm being suffered by the economy and potentially by Canadians across this country, including farmers and patients who are waiting for medical equipment and medicines, is dire. We must take action, and the action we are taking provides for mediation to continue.
We want the parties to continue to mediate, and we want the agreement to be made at the table with the mediator. This is why we are acting. This is a matter of significant impact on Canadians across this country, so we are moving forward with this legislation.
View Scott Duvall Profile
NDP (ON)
View Scott Duvall Profile
2021-04-28 15:57 [p.6306]
Madam Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that the Minister of Labour is saying that she is hoping that we could come to a resolution. On Sunday the two sides were still negotiating. It has come to my attention that a proposal was sent yesterday that would have put workers back to work immediately. The only party that disagreed was the company.
Why is the minister still pursuing this, knowing that free collective bargaining could still be done? Instead, she has given the weight of the hammer to the company itself, which now knows that it does not have to negotiate any further because the government wants to proceed with this legislation.
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, the member is from Hamilton as well, so he is very familiar with the strong labour movement that we have here. We respect the collective bargaining process, we have to let the parties bargain, negotiate, present their positions and make decisions at that table concerning what positions they will take. The mediator is there to assist them with this.
It is not my role to enter into those negotiations and make decisions for the parties. That is up to the parties to do. We are supporting that through the mediator, who is present at the table.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Madam Speaker, this back-to-work legislation is an attack on the workers at the Port of Montreal. It is an attack on all Canadian workers. We know that the right to bargain collectively, to bargain fairly, is a fundamental right of working people. We know that it is a fundamental constitutional right.
The Liberals are out there talking about the middle class, and today they were out there talking about the National Day of Mourning, yet on this same day, they are bringing in legislation on the side of the employer. Let us not kid ourselves that is not exactly what it is, and it is taking the power away from workers.
How can the government claim to be on the side of working people, on the side of the middle class, while bringing in back-to-work legislation against the port workers of Montreal and against working people in this country?
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I would say a couple of things. First, we do this as a least favoured option. I will be very clear that we are not hiding that. Of course, we want the parties to reach an agreement at the table, but that clearly, after two and a half years of negotiation and over 100 negotiation sessions, with mediation support provided by the federal government, the parties are not close to reaching an agreement. We have to look at the reality of the situation, and the reality is dire.
Second, if we want to talk about workers, there are hundreds of thousands of workers whose jobs come into jeopardy when the work stoppage starts at the port. Yes, we want the parties to continue to negotiate. Yes, we want workers to be supported in this. This is why we continue to say to the parties to reach an agreement, and in the legislation we are putting forward there are up to 21 days during which they can still negotiate and come to an agreement in the presence of a mediator and arbitrator.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
View Leah Gazan Profile
2021-04-28 16:01 [p.6307]
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate, particularly on this important National Day of Mourning, that the government is pushing back-to-work legislation and violating the rights of workers. This is really an unfortunate step, and it is certainly another indication of how the government privileges its corporate friends over even the rights of workers.
I am wondering why the government, knowing all of this, still chooses to push through archaic, draconian back-to-work legislation that violates the rights of workers.
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I would say first and foremost that, as Minister of Labour, my priority throughout this pandemic has been the health and safety of workers. We have taken measures, including $2.5 million for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, to improve health and safety during the pandemic. The government has moved forward in a number of ways to protect workers.
I will read a portion of a letter I received from Ontario ministers, as well as ministers in Quebec, in which they write, “Close to 250,000 employees in Greater Montréal and 273,000 workers in Ontario employed in the production of shipping container products could be affected by a new labour dispute at the Port of Montreal.”
These are hundreds of thousands of workers across this country whose jobs would be put in jeopardy by a work stoppage at the port. We are concerned about these workers, of course. These workers are putting food on the table during a pandemic and paying for rent, so we have to be aware of the impact that this is also having on workers across this country. That is absolutely factored into our decision to move forward with this legislation.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-04-28 16:03 [p.6307]
Madam Speaker, I am interested in the minister's thoughts. I realize how difficult this is for all of us, in regard to it not being our first choice. This is not something we want to do, and it is not something that is unique to governments.
There have been New Democratic provincial governments, for example, that have brought in back-to-work legislation. There have been provincial Liberal administrations that had to bring in back-to-work legislation. This is to emphasize that, when legislation of this nature is brought in, it is not because there is this deep desire to do it. Rather, we are put into a position where we have to go beyond the talks and deal with what is in the best interests of the country.
If the minister could pick up on that particular point, I would appreciate it.
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, there is no question on this. As I have said repeatedly, this is our government's least favoured option. This is our last option. However, we are compelled to act because of the dire situation we are in. The health and safety of Canadians across this country is at stake. We have seniors who are relying on medicines and things such as dialysis equipment. Their health and safety are at stake.
We have farmers who are waiting for grain and fertilizer, and they are expressing concern. They are ringing the alarm bells. We have Canadians who are waiting for food, and they will rely on the farmers to grow it. The season is upon us. As well, and as I have said, we have workers across this country who are a part of the supply chain and their jobs are going to be at stake. There are hundreds of thousands of workers whose jobs rely on the work that takes place at the port and in the supply chains.
This is a situation in which I wish the parties could come to an agreement. I encourage them to. I have the same message today that I have had all along. I encourage the parties to come to the agreement. The federal mediation service is there, and it is available 24-7. I would like to thank the workers in the mediation service, because they have been offering—
View Jenica Atwin Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Jenica Atwin Profile
2021-04-28 16:05 [p.6307]
Madam Speaker, there has been a lot said about how this is the last possible option and this is the least favourable option. Could the minister comment on how this is always the last option for those workers? They do not want to strike either, but it is a tool that is used to fight for rights and for recognition.
There was a mention about her involvement in the labour movement in the Hamilton area. Could she comment on just how important it is to maintain the right for Canadian workers to strike, what that can lead to, and how it is absolutely the last option for them as well?
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, there is no question that we believe in the collective bargaining process. We believe that parties should be supported to make the deals at the table. When parties are negotiating, they know what is dear to them and what they cannot compromise on, and they know the things they can be flexible on.
I have been very clear with the parties since the very beginning on this file, and that was to say two things. The first is that they have to be flexible at the table. We all know that. We are never going to come to an agreement, unless there is some flexibility. Second, they have to have a desire to come to an agreement. That message was communicated, and I want to thank the parties for the days they have spent at the table.
The reality now is that the situation is dire, and we have provided the support. For two and a half years the federal government has been there. Over 100 days of negotiations have taken place, and the federal government has been there. That support has been there—
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2021-04-28 16:07 [p.6308]
Madam Speaker, with respect, I have some news for the minister: Strikes are intended to cause economic disruption. That is the whole purpose of a strike. A strike that does not have economic impacts is a strike that has no value whatsoever.
There is no right to collectively bargain without the right to back that up by withdrawing services. If that right is neutered, there is absolutely no pressure that workers can bring to bear to match the employer's power to unilaterally determine the conditions of employment. The other thing, of course, is that it is always open to the minister to declare essential services, which would allow the workers to exercise their right to strike while ensuring there is a minimal workforce there ensuring essential goods get delivered.
If workers do not have the right to withdraw their services, what possible pressure could there be on this employer to resolve this dispute?
Results: 1 - 100 of 195 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data