Discussion · Government Orders
Heather McPherson NDP
“The member for Halifax attacked my honesty by saying my arguments against this bill are a campaign of lies. My concerns about this bill hurting workers' right to strike are real, based on the bill's text, and shared by major labour unions. I want the member for Halifax to take back her words and make a public apology.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and add my voice to the matter of privilege raised yesterday by my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Debate in this House is often vigorous. We know that. We disagree about facts, policy and the direction of our country every single day in this place. That is our responsibility as elected representatives, but there is a clear distinction between challenging an argument and attacking a member’s integrity. Standing Order 18 prohibits disrespectful or offensive language. House of Commons Procedure and Practice is equally clear: “Remarks which question a Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order.” The member for Halifax attacked my integrity when she characterized my opposition to Bill C-39 as a “wild disinformation campaign...perpetrated by members of this House”, specifically referring to me and my work opposing this legislation. I reject that characterization. I stand by my words, and I will stand by my facts. I have raised serious concerns in this House about Bill C-39 and the extraordinary new powers it would give the minister of labour. Those are not invented concerns. They are written into the legislation, and I am far from alone in raising them. United Steelworkers national director Marty Warren stated, “the right to strike is a red line.” The Canadian Labour Congress has warned that this bill would give one minister extraordinary power to end a legal strike without parliamentary oversight. CLC President Bea Bruske put the problem plainly: “A right you cannot exercise is not a right.” Unifor President Lana Payne has warned that the proposed amendments would give the minister special authority to override workers’ ability to exercise their right to strike. Unifor has also cautioned that employers may come to expect government intervention, fundamentally changing the power of the bargaining table. I can go on. I can say what Mark Hancock from CUPE has said. I can say what Gil McGowan from the Alberta Federation of Labour has said. For me to stand in this place as a representative of the New Democratic Party, a party of labour, and speak about what I am entitled to as a member of Parliament, as somebody who represents labour in this country, is my right. This bill would not just weaken the right to strike. It would have consequences beyond bargaining. When employers believe the government will step in when negotiations become difficult, there is less incentive. I have consistently raised these concerns in good faith based on the text of the legislation, the constitutional importance of the right to strike and the explicit warnings of Canada’s labour movement. Calling that work a “wild disinformation campaign” does not answer the substance of my argument. It attempts to discredit me as a member of Parliament making that argument. Parliament must be a place where members can scrutinize legislation, challenge the government and defend workers’ rights without having their integrity for doing so impugned. For these reasons, I support the concerns raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I ask that the member for Halifax be directed to withdraw her comments and publicly apologize.”
Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and add my voice to the matter of privilege raised yesterday by my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Debate in this House is often vigorous. We know that. We disagree about facts, policy and the direction of our country every single day in this place. That is our responsibility as elected representatives, but there is a clear distinction between challenging an argument and attacking a member’s integrity. Standing Order 18 prohibits disrespectful or offensive language. House of Commons Procedure and Practice is equally clear: “Remarks which question a Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order.” The member for Halifax attacked my integrity when she characterized my opposition to Bill C-39 as a “wild disinformation campaign...perpetrated by members of this House”, specifically referring to me and my work opposing this legislation. I reject that characterization. I stand by my words, and I will stand by my facts. I have raised serious concerns in this House about Bill C-39 and the extraordinary new powers it would give the minister of labour. Those are not invented concerns. They are written into the legislation, and I am far from alone in raising them. United Steelworkers national director Marty Warren stated, “the right to strike is a red line.” The Canadian Labour Congress has warned that this bill would give one minister extraordinary power to end a legal strike without parliamentary oversight. CLC President Bea Bruske put the problem plainly: “A right you cannot exercise is not a right.” Unifor President Lana Payne has warned that the proposed amendments would give the minister special authority to override workers’ ability to exercise their right to strike. Unifor has also cautioned that employers may come to expect government intervention, fundamentally changing the power of the bargaining table. I can go on. I can say what Mark Hancock from CUPE has said. I can say what Gil McGowan from the Alberta Federation of Labour has said. For me to stand in this place as a representative of the New Democratic Party, a party of labour, and speak about what I am entitled to as a member of Parliament, as somebody who represents labour in this country, is my right. This bill would not just weaken the right to strike. It would have consequences beyond bargaining. When employers believe the government will step in when negotiations become difficult, there is less incentive. I have consistently raised these concerns in good faith based on the text of the legislation, the constitutional importance of the right to strike and the explicit warnings of Canada’s labour movement. Calling that work a “wild disinformation campaign” does not answer the substance of my argument. It attempts to discredit me as a member of Parliament making that argument. Parliament must be a place where members can scrutinize legislation, challenge the government and defend workers’ rights without having their integrity for doing so impugned. For these reasons, I support the concerns raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I ask that the member for Halifax be directed to withdraw her comments and publicly apologize.