“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I would like to discuss the erosion of workers’ rights in this bill. The government is giving itself powers to end disputes and issue an order. This change merely kicks the problem down the road. It does not make it go away. On top of that, the problems between employers and unions remain unaffected, and this has a snowball effect. The problem, in my view, is that the Canada Labour Code has not been reviewed in a very long time. This has led to the problems we are seeing. They will not be resolved by passing special legislation, like the provisions in Bill C‑39, but rather by amending the Canada Labour Code and, as a first step, introducing anti-scab legislation and prohibiting the use of scabs, as Quebec did roughly 50 years ago. This would help resolve labour disputes. What does my hon. colleague and friend think about that?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 98 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 100%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 119 wordsas I said earlier, bills on this subject have been introduced in the past.1Partly on pointI previously spoke to a bill about section 107, the issue covered so extensively in Bill C‑39.2The government coudl have taken a serious look at this issue, rather than inserting it in an omnibus bill that includes other measures.Ultimately, the government is hypocritically taking away workers’ rights and undermining accountability to Parliament in a backdoor way.It used to be that these issues had to be debated among parliamentarians.3The only thing that delegating this to the Canada Industrial Relations Board does is give power to another body and ensure that the minister will no longer be accountable to Parliament on this matter.
