Discussion · Private Members' Business
Harb Gill Conservative
“I do not want this bill to pass. The government has wrongly used its power to stop strikes and force workers into arbitration. But we should not completely take away this power, because the government might need it during real emergencies. Instead, we should make the government follow strict rules and protect workers' rights.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the good, hard-working people of Windsor. Before I get into the bill, I want to recognize the bargaining team at Unifor Local 444, led by James Stewart, and the hard work they are putting in as they negotiate with Stellantis. The people of Windsor appreciate them. I also want to recognize the workers in Brampton who are waiting for answers about the future of their plant, their jobs and their families. They want to know when the government is going to deliver on its promises and hold Stellantis accountable. Windsor’s workers are standing with them, because they understand that when one community of auto workers is left in limbo, it affects all of us. That is what solidarity looks like on the ground. However, frankly, after months of warnings from the industry minister about holding Stellantis accountable, workers in Brampton are still waiting for answers and meaningful results. They cannot feed their families with press releases. They cannot pay their mortgages with a promise. If public money was provided in exchange for commitments to Canadian manufacturing, workers and taxpayers have every right to ask whether those commitments are being honoured and what the consequences are of not upholding those commitments. The Liberal government needs to stop talking about accountability and start demonstrating it for a change. There is something else that the Liberal government needs to remember about these workers. They are not just workers; they are taxpayers too. Every payday, they send their hard-earned dollars to Ottawa. They expect that money to be spent responsibly. They expect their government to respect the work they do, the taxes they pay and the commitments made in their names. Canadians are expected to show up for work, meet their obligations, pay their taxes and play by the rules. They have every right to expect the Liberal government to be held to the same standard. Is it any wonder that Bill C-247 has made its way to the House floor today? When workers see their bargaining power weakened by a government intervention and when their concerns about job security go unanswered, their frustration is understandable. The government cannot keep saying to workers “trust us” while giving them very little reason to believe that their concerns are being taken seriously. I want to approach this debate from a perspective I know well. I spent three decades in policing, and during that time, I was a member of a police union. I understand collective bargaining. I understand why workers need a voice, why they need representation and why negotiations matter. I have also attended picket lines as a police officer, helping maintain peace when emotions were running high. I have seen the anger and frustration. I have seen people worried about their livelihoods, their families and what the future holds. A labour dispute is never just about the numbers on a page. It is about a worker who has spent 20 or 30 years at a job and is suddenly worried about what comes next. It is about a family that has built its life around a steady paycheque. It is about people who feel they have done their part and are asking for a fair deal. As a police officer on a picket line, my job was not to take sides. My job was to help maintain peace, protect people’s safety and ensure that everyone could exercise their constitutional rights, but maintaining peace and taking away someone’s right to stand up for themselves are two very different things. That brings me to section 107 of the Labour Code. Let me put this in plain language. A screwdriver is a tool. We use it to fix things, tighten screws and get a job done. If somebody takes a screwdriver and uses it to hurt another person, do we outlaw that screwdriver? We do not. We hold the person who misused the tool accountable. The problem is not necessarily the tool; the problem is how it is being used. Section 107 has existed for decades as a mechanism the government can use to help address labour disputes and maintain industrial peace, but the Liberal government has repeatedly misused it to intervene in disputes and shoehorn everyone toward binding arbitration, taking away workers’ ability to use a strike as leverage. My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon raised these concerns in his speech on May 27, and I understand why unions are angry. I understand why they are concerned that the government is stepping in before workers have had a fair opportunity to negotiate an agreement. Let us think about it from the workers’ perspective. They sit across the table from their employer, they negotiate, they make compromises and they try to reach an agreement. What happens if they believe that the employer is not listening? What happens if they have tried everything else and the only leverage they have left is the possibility of a strike? What happens if the government steps in and takes that leverage away? They are left wondering whether the bargaining process was ever fair in the first place. Nobody wants a strike. Workers lose wages, businesses lose production, families face uncertainty and communities feel the impact. However, the fact that a strike causes disruption does not mean that the right to strike is the problem. Sometimes that disruption is what brings the parties back to the table and forces them to find a solution. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the right to strike as an essential component of meaningful collective bargaining under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know the importance of collective bargaining from my own experience as a member of a police association. Workers are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a meaningful voice in decisions that affect their working life. That is a principle that we as Conservatives will defend without hesitation. We believe that people should have the opportunity to work, earn a living and provide for their family. We believe that businesses should be able to invest, grow and create jobs. However, those goals do not require us to weaken workers’ bargaining rights. A strong economy needs successful businesses. It also needs skilled workers who believe they are being treated fairly. Let us look at the WestJet mechanics dispute. The government referred the matter for binding arbitration, yet the parties ultimately reached their own agreement. There is a lesson there. When employers and workers have to sit down and work through their differences, they have an incentive to find a solution they can both live with. Collective bargaining is not easy. Neither side gets everything it wants. It requires compromise. However, there is a difference between helping the parties reach an agreement and stepping in to take away their bargaining power. There is also a difference between getting people back to work and actually resolving the issues that caused the dispute. Unions have raised serious concerns about government interventions involving railways, Canada Post and airlines. We should listen to them. I do not believe that every union position is automatically right, nor do I believe that the employers are always wrong, but workers deserve to be heard. The rules should be fair, and the government should not reach for the easiest way out whenever negotiations become difficult. Some members will ask, if section 107 is being misused, why not repeal it altogether? I understand the argument behind Bill C-247. I understand the frustration that has led many union members to support the repeal, but I come back to the screwdriver. If a tool has a legitimate purpose and the government misuses it, I believe we should hold the government accountable and put proper safeguards in place. We should not automatically assume that eliminating the tool is the only answer. We should strengthen mediation, make extraordinary interventions transparent and ensure that workers’ constitutional rights are respected. There may be exceptional circumstances where intervention is necessary to protect public safety or essential services, but those circumstances must be treated carefully. Economic inconvenience or crony capitalism alone should not become an excuse to take away workers’ bargaining leverage. I want to bring this back to Windsor and Brampton. In Brampton, workers are waiting for answers about their plant and their future. In Windsor, workers are standing with them, demanding that Stellantis honour its commitments and that the federal government do its job. Those workers are not asking for a handout; they are asking for accountability. They have put in the hours, they have developed the skills, they have built the vehicles and they have helped make this country prosperous. As I said, I spent three decades as a police officer and as a member of a police association. I know the importance of rules and accountability. I know that when tensions rise, the best way forward is to deal with people fairly and consistently. This bill, the way it would be used by the government, is not fair and not equitable either. Workers do not need lectures about keeping the economy moving. They are the people who keep it moving. They build our vehicles, keep our factories running, support their family, contribute to their community and pay their taxes for public services. They deserve a government that respects their contributions, honours its commitments and protects their rights.”
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the good, hard-working people of Windsor. Before I get into the bill, I want to recognize the bargaining team at Unifor Local 444, led by James Stewart, and the hard work they are putting in as they negotiate with Stellantis. The people of Windsor appreciate them. I also want to recognize the workers in Brampton who are waiting for answers about the future of their plant, their jobs and their families. They want to know when the government is going to deliver on its promises and hold Stellantis accountable. Windsor’s workers are standing with them, because they understand that when one community of auto workers is left in limbo, it affects all of us. That is what solidarity looks like on the ground. However, frankly, after months of warnings from the industry minister about holding Stellantis accountable, workers in Brampton are still waiting for answers and meaningful results. They cannot feed their families with press releases. They cannot pay their mortgages with a promise. If public money was provided in exchange for commitments to Canadian manufacturing, workers and taxpayers have every right to ask whether those commitments are being honoured and what the consequences are of not upholding those commitments. The Liberal government needs to stop talking about accountability and start demonstrating it for a change. There is something else that the Liberal government needs to remember about these workers. They are not just workers; they are taxpayers too. Every payday, they send their hard-earned dollars to Ottawa. They expect that money to be spent responsibly. They expect their government to respect the work they do, the taxes they pay and the commitments made in their names. Canadians are expected to show up for work, meet their obligations, pay their taxes and play by the rules. They have every right to expect the Liberal government to be held to the same standard. Is it any wonder that Bill C-247 has made its way to the House floor today? When workers see their bargaining power weakened by a government intervention and when their concerns about job security go unanswered, their frustration is understandable. The government cannot keep saying to workers “trust us” while giving them very little reason to believe that their concerns are being taken seriously. I want to approach this debate from a perspective I know well. I spent three decades in policing, and during that time, I was a member of a police union. I understand collective bargaining. I understand why workers need a voice, why they need representation and why negotiations matter. I have also attended picket lines as a police officer, helping maintain peace when emotions were running high. I have seen the anger and frustration. I have seen people worried about their livelihoods, their families and what the future holds. A labour dispute is never just about the numbers on a page. It is about a worker who has spent 20 or 30 years at a job and is suddenly worried about what comes next. It is about a family that has built its life around a steady paycheque. It is about people who feel they have done their part and are asking for a fair deal. As a police officer on a picket line, my job was not to take sides. My job was to help maintain peace, protect people’s safety and ensure that everyone could exercise their constitutional rights, but maintaining peace and taking away someone’s right to stand up for themselves are two very different things. That brings me to section 107 of the Labour Code. Let me put this in plain language. A screwdriver is a tool. We use it to fix things, tighten screws and get a job done. If somebody takes a screwdriver and uses it to hurt another person, do we outlaw that screwdriver? We do not. We hold the person who misused the tool accountable. The problem is not necessarily the tool; the problem is how it is being used. Section 107 has existed for decades as a mechanism the government can use to help address labour disputes and maintain industrial peace, but the Liberal government has repeatedly misused it to intervene in disputes and shoehorn everyone toward binding arbitration, taking away workers’ ability to use a strike as leverage. My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon raised these concerns in his speech on May 27, and I understand why unions are angry. I understand why they are concerned that the government is stepping in before workers have had a fair opportunity to negotiate an agreement. Let us think about it from the workers’ perspective. They sit across the table from their employer, they negotiate, they make compromises and they try to reach an agreement. What happens if they believe that the employer is not listening? What happens if they have tried everything else and the only leverage they have left is the possibility of a strike? What happens if the government steps in and takes that leverage away? They are left wondering whether the bargaining process was ever fair in the first place. Nobody wants a strike. Workers lose wages, businesses lose production, families face uncertainty and communities feel the impact. However, the fact that a strike causes disruption does not mean that the right to strike is the problem. Sometimes that disruption is what brings the parties back to the table and forces them to find a solution. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the right to strike as an essential component of meaningful collective bargaining under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know the importance of collective bargaining from my own experience as a member of a police association. Workers are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a meaningful voice in decisions that affect their working life. That is a principle that we as Conservatives will defend without hesitation. We believe that people should have the opportunity to work, earn a living and provide for their family. We believe that businesses should be able to invest, grow and create jobs. However, those goals do not require us to weaken workers’ bargaining rights. A strong economy needs successful businesses. It also needs skilled workers who believe they are being treated fairly. Let us look at the WestJet mechanics dispute. The government referred the matter for binding arbitration, yet the parties ultimately reached their own agreement. There is a lesson there. When employers and workers have to sit down and work through their differences, they have an incentive to find a solution they can both live with. Collective bargaining is not easy. Neither side gets everything it wants. It requires compromise. However, there is a difference between helping the parties reach an agreement and stepping in to take away their bargaining power. There is also a difference between getting people back to work and actually resolving the issues that caused the dispute. Unions have raised serious concerns about government interventions involving railways, Canada Post and airlines. We should listen to them. I do not believe that every union position is automatically right, nor do I believe that the employers are always wrong, but workers deserve to be heard. The rules should be fair, and the government should not reach for the easiest way out whenever negotiations become difficult. Some members will ask, if section 107 is being misused, why not repeal it altogether? I understand the argument behind Bill C-247. I understand the frustration that has led many union members to support the repeal, but I come back to the screwdriver. If a tool has a legitimate purpose and the government misuses it, I believe we should hold the government accountable and put proper safeguards in place. We should not automatically assume that eliminating the tool is the only answer. We should strengthen mediation, make extraordinary interventions transparent and ensure that workers’ constitutional rights are respected. There may be exceptional circumstances where intervention is necessary to protect public safety or essential services, but those circumstances must be treated carefully. Economic inconvenience or crony capitalism alone should not become an excuse to take away workers’ bargaining leverage. I want to bring this back to Windsor and Brampton. In Brampton, workers are waiting for answers about their plant and their future. In Windsor, workers are standing with them, demanding that Stellantis honour its commitments and that the federal government do its job. Those workers are not asking for a handout; they are asking for accountability. They have put in the hours, they have developed the skills, they have built the vehicles and they have helped make this country prosperous. As I said, I spent three decades as a police officer and as a member of a police association. I know the importance of rules and accountability. I know that when tensions rise, the best way forward is to deal with people fairly and consistently. This bill, the way it would be used by the government, is not fair and not equitable either. Workers do not need lectures about keeping the economy moving. They are the people who keep it moving. They build our vehicles, keep our factories running, support their family, contribute to their community and pay their taxes for public services. They deserve a government that respects their contributions, honours its commitments and protects their rights.