Evidence of meeting #111 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Could we have our witnesses explain what the effect of this is?
9:05 a.m.
Manager, Workplace and Labour Relations Policy Division, Department of Employment and Social Development
Adding paragraph (c) to proposed subsection 94(4) would broaden the scope of the prohibition on replacement workers under the bill. Currently, under Bill C-58, the employers are only prohibited from using their employees if they were hired after a notice to bargain was given in the particular dispute that's in question. What this would do, by my reading, is remove that caveat and say that an employer cannot use any employee to do the work of striking or locked-out bargaining unit members.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you very much.
Mr. Seeback asked the question that I was going to ask. It would cover everything. It would cover any employee, including a manager or whoever. They would be covered under this amendment. Is that correct?
9:10 a.m.
Manager, Workplace and Labour Relations Policy Division, Department of Employment and Social Development
No, the managers would be distinct from the employees. It's two categories in proposed paragraph 94(4)(a). The way proposed paragraph 94(4)(a) is structured, it says, “any employee or any person who performs management functions”, and that's the category that's a manager. Proposed paragraph 94(4)(c) would just be anyone who is in an employment relationship, but not including the managers.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Okay.
Going at this, we did the tri-party approach. We talked with everyone. I think I would still have trepidation with this amendment because I don't know what the unintended consequences would be with this in particular, with this amendment off the floor. We can't support this amendment right now, I think, as written. This is historic legislation that's going to benefit workers and it's going to keep people at the bargaining table. I'm not going to be supporting this particular amendment.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Sheehan.
Just before I go to Madame Chabot, just so we're clear, Madame Chabot's amendment is in order.
She moved it to a new format before it was debated. That's why it's perfectly in order, and it's left to the committee to decide.
Would you like to speak on your amendment, Madame Chabot?
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Yes. I will say, with respect, that the amendment was not proposed at the last minute. Part (b) of my amendment was already in the bundle of amendments that I had submitted.
I am moving this amendment because, although I can acknowledge that this is a historic bill since we are looking at a federal anti-strikebreaker law after all these years, it contains a loophole that does not exist in Quebec. The bill allows employees of another bargaining unit at the same employer to be used during a labour dispute, and that is not permitted in Quebec. Adding “any employee” will therefore close this loophole.
In Quebec's anti-strikebreaker law, the only ones who may work—as you mentioned—are managers, management personnel, and so on. However, you could not use personnel from another bargaining unit at the same employer—but the present wording of your bill would permit that. The purpose of this amendment is to close that loophole.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
If there is no further discussion I will go to a recorded vote on the amendment of Madam Chabot.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
The amendment of Madame Chabot has been defeated.
We'll move to NDP-4.
Mr. Boulerice, do you wish to speak to it?
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of amendment NDP‑4 is to respond to the concerns voiced by several unions regarding the classes of workers who may or may not go to the workplace during a strike or lockout. We are therefore adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to subclause 9(4) of the bill, to include more classes of workers who would not be able to cross the picket line or go to the workplace to perform certain duties.
Paragraph (c) reads as follows:
(c) any employee who is not in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out and who is working at another location;
We talked about this not so long ago.
Paragraph (d) reads as follows:
(d) any volunteer, student, member of the public or family member of the employer.
In a nutshell, we heard the concerns of a number of witnesses regarding the fact that the bill is not clear enough and contains potential loopholes. The purpose of this amendment is to solve that problem.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Sheehan, did you have your hand up?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I had circulated a subamendment that I think everyone has. I just wanted to make sure that it was circulated.
May 2nd, 2024 / 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
On the subamendment that we proposed, we heard in testimony before the committee that the union is advocating putting a broad ban on replacement workers. They ask that employers be banned from bringing in other employees to work at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place. They also said they wanted to close loopholes by banning volunteers and other non-standard replacement workers. We agree with that part of what our colleague has put forward.
When employers bring employees from other work locations, it could undermine the prohibition by taking the focus away from the bargaining table. When there is a loophole, such as using volunteers, people lose faith in the law, and we don't want that. We want Bill C-58 to work, so we agree with that portion.
However, there are issues with the way the amendment is written when it comes to location. That's why we're happy to support this amendment with the subamendments we have proposed. In the second part, “family member” is difficult to define, and this would affect only the smallest business, but we understand why unions have concerns about volunteers, and that's why banning these volunteers would also create an additional check on the system so that there's no ambiguity about who will volunteer and who gets paid.
Basically what we're looking at is removing “family member” as defined. We agree with most of it, save and except a family member, such as somebody's wife who would come in during a strike. Most of our workplaces under the federally regulated system are larger, so I believe it's covering most of what the NDP put forward, save and except a family member. That's just the subamendment. We agree with everything, save and except including “family member”.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I believe everybody has a copy of Mr. Sheehan's subamendment. Now the discussion moves to his subamendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a friendly subamendment that has exactly the same effect as what we in the NDP proposed. It suggests that the part concerning the workplace be reworded, and that is completely acceptable.
I also hear my colleague's concerns regarding the difficulty of defining a family member. The Canada Labour Code may not be where we should define the concept of extended or blended family and say whether it includes cousins, brothers-in-law, and so on. That might create a number of interpretation problems, and we want to avoid that. We want the bill to be effective.
What was of most importance to us was to include volunteers, students and members of the public. That is a step forward when it comes to defining the people who may not go to the workplace to perform duties. This subamendment is important and is completely consistent with what we in the NDP are proposing and reflects what the witnesses said to us.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
What was the friendly part of that?
Mr. Boulerice, could you give us the friendly part of the subamendment, just so we're clear? What were you amending? It wasn't clear to me. Could you make it clear?
Oh, I thought you were proposing.... Okay. Currently on the floor, then, is the subamendment of Mr. Sheehan. Seeing no further discussion, I will call a vote on Mr. Sheehan's subamendment to NDP-4. Is everybody clear?
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The subamendment of Mr. Sheehan has carried.
We will now vote on NDP-4 as amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now move to BQ-3.
Madame Chabot, do you wish to speak to it?
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
The purpose of amendment BQ‑3 is to delete subsection 94(5), which creates a list of exceptions to the objective we want to achieve: that there be no replacement workers in the case of strike or lockout.
If you listened carefully to the unions, what they said in their testimony to us was yes. However, we should not do indirectly what we do not want to do directly. The example given was cheese: so many exceptions that we wonder whether the objective will be achieved.
As subsection 94(5) is now worded, it allows for continuation of the service of a contractor who was used before the notice to bargain was sent. That is evidently contrary to the objective of the bill, if that is in fact its objective.
If the objective is to have a clear conscience and tell ourselves we have accomplished something, that is one thing, but I urge members of the committee to eliminate as many exceptions to the rule as possible, so the exception does not become the rule. That is the purpose of amendment BQ‑3, which proposes to delete subsection 94(5).
It will be recalled that during their testimony, the representatives of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ, said that it could not conceal its concern about this new subsection. The way it is worded, it would mean that even before bargaining begins, an employer could start using another employer's employees, that is, subcontractors, to do the work.
In order to achieve the objective of the bill, I urge committee members to remove subsection 94(5). Although we welcome the bill, our concern has always been that it fulfill its mission properly.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I think subsection 94(5) might be problematic, actually. It's about “continuing services”.
Basically, your government wants to make it clear that using replacement workers is prohibited. I understand that it's an agreement you've defended together, but you added that there might be continuing services under certain conditions, as stated in subsection 94(5):
94(5) "If, before the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given, an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer was using the services of a person referred to in paragraph (4)(b)…
It says that replacement workers cannot be used. But if they're hired prior to the notice to bargain, replacements can be used. It amounts to giving an employer who wants to declare a lockout all the tools needed to get around the act.