Bill C-58

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) amend the scope of the prohibition relating to replacement workers by removing the requirement of demonstrating a purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity, by adding persons whose services must not be used during legal strikes and lockouts and by providing certain exceptions;
(b) prohibit employers from using, during a legal strike or lockout intended to involve the cessation of work by all employees in a bargaining unit, the services of an employee in that unit, subject to certain exceptions;
(c) make the contravention by employers of either of those prohibitions an offence punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 per day;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing an administrative monetary penalties scheme for the purpose of promoting compliance with those prohibitions; and
(e) amend the maintenance of activities process in order to, among other things, encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout, encourage faster decision making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when parties are unable to agree and reduce the need for the Minister of Labour to make referrals to the Board.

Canada Labour Code

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

moved that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the labour movement has been saying that replacement workers are wrong for longer than this country has existed. People in the labour movement have been telling us that replacement workers distract from the bargaining table and prolong disputes and that the use of replacement workers can poison the relationship between an employer and workers for generations after.

We listened to workers and I am very proud to say that on November 9, we tabled Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

Some people have asked why now. Why should Canada ban replacement workers now? Just because it is the way things have always been done does not mean it is the way that things should be done. The option of replacement workers is something that many of us have taken for granted over our lives. However, should a worker's right to meaningfully withhold their labour be surrendered to the possibility of being replaced? Is a bargaining table where one's bargaining powers are fundamentally limited a fair bargaining table? Are replacement workers part of how we ought to handle labour relations in the 21st century? The answer to all those questions, I would argue, is no.

Bill C-58 will prohibit the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. Violators will be fined $100,000 a day.

This bill is unlike others that have come before this House in years past. Unlike previous legislation to ban replacement workers, this bill was borne of tripartism. It is the result of employers, workers and government all coming together, sitting at the same table to discuss an important issue in Canadian labour relations.

This legislation will improve labour relations in Canada. It will provide greater stability and certainty for all Canadians.

I personally sat in on the consultations with employers. I sat in on the consultations with labour and I sat in on consultations with employers and labour together because I knew this bill had to be forged through a true tripartite approach. The consultations were messy at times, but they forced people to listen to one another. It was not just employers and unions sitting at two sides of a table, shouting at one another. It was employers, unions and government sitting side by side, working together to build better legislation.

These consultations were not easy. They were tense and sometimes difficult, but they allowed the parties to reach an agreement.

This bill's improvements to the maintenance of activities process are a direct result of that work. A maintenance of activities agreement is how employers and unions come to agree on what work must be done during a strike or a lockout. It is a truce in the midst of a dispute to protect the health and safety of Canadians and prevent damage to property and to the environment so that there is a job site to come back to when the negotiations have inevitably concluded.

In the federal sector, employees and their employers know that so much of their work impacts the health and safety of all Canadians. We are talking about the movement of critical medical supplies across our supply chains, the sharing of emergency information through telecom services and the maintenance of sensitive transportation infrastructure. All of these services, if not supported and maintained, can harm the health and safety of Canadians.

Right now, parties are not required to have a maintenance of activities agreement or even to come together to determine whether they need one. With this legislation, employers and unions will have to come together and determine what work needs to continue during a strike or lockout, if any. We are setting clear timelines on this. After they give notice to begin bargaining, unions and employers will have 15 days to come to an agreement. If they cannot come to an agreement, the Canada Industrial Relations Board will come to one for them within 90 days. This is important. It means more certainty and predictability in collective bargaining for businesses, for unions and for employers alike.

Stability and certainty are guiding everything we are doing.

We have heard from our colleagues across the aisle, some of whom have suggested we pass and bring this bill into force in the next six weeks, but when making one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen, we cannot be rushed.

Bill C-58 will change the bargaining table. It will change the role of the Canada Industrial Relations Board and it will fundamentally change how labour relations operate in this country. We are asking the CIRB to resolve issues around replacement workers on new and predictable timelines, to resolve maintenance of activities disputes within 90 days if parties cannot do it in 15. So they need to staff up. They need to strengthen their processes. They are already telling us what they need because the purpose of the CIRB's creation was to take labour disputes out of the court system, to free up the court system and allow labour disputes to be processed in reasonable order.

We are building up the CIRB to stay true to that mission. It is the only way we will make this legislation work. It is a massive change and they need time. All parties need time to prepare and adapt to their new requirements and obligations, and to formulate new strategies for the bargaining table, so that this legislation makes the positive impact that we know it can and should make for stability, for certainty.

To those who have questioned if this bill will in fact result in that, who have raised concerns with these changes, I understand. As union leaders told me after we tabled this bill, in a bit more colourful language, this is a big deal. It is disruptive; it is a change, but I can tell colleagues right now that it will bring more stability, more balance and more certainty to how we collectively bargain in this country because we are bringing the focus back to where it belongs: the table.

Just look at the bill. Look at the improvements that will benefit businesses, unions, employers and the public alike. One does not have to look far to understand what it means. As we speak, workers at the Port of Quebec are on the front lines of this issue. They have been replaced and they have been on the picket line for over one year. Those workers on the front lines every day are ongoing proof for why we need this kind of legislation because replacement workers prolong disputes.

Workers at the Port of Québec are facing this problem at this very moment.

They have been replaced for over a year now. Replacement workers prolong disputes. The longshore workers are on strike, as is their right, but the replacement workers have disrupted negotiations.

For 14 months, longshore workers have been on strike there, exercising their constitutional right to do so, and for 14 months, replacement workers have been operating the port. That is 14 months of earning less than their salary, with no benefits, no coverage and no work. How quickly could this dispute have been resolved, how long could we have had a permanent and resilient agreement between the union and the employer, if replacement workers had not been an option and if the only option had been sitting down at the bargaining table to negotiate a deal that works for everyone?

Long, drawn-out disputes like this can bring out the worst, because workers are left in impossible situations, choosing between standing up for their rights and putting food on the table for their family. In fact, this is why other jurisdictions have decided to bring in legislation to ban replacement workers. When the Government of Quebec brought in its legislation to ban replacement workers in 1977, it was to stop the violent confrontations to which strikes and picket lines were leading in that province. In 1993, the Government of British Columbia passed similar legislation to address the increasingly hostile relationship between employers and the labour movement.

What happened in Quebec and B.C. after that legislation was passed? There were less frequent strikes. In B.C., there was no discernible impact on the number of strikes. Over the past close to 30 years, strike activity in the province has never gone above the 1993 numbers. In Quebec, while transitions in Quebec's economy in the 1970s did cause a brief uptick in strikes, they have declined ever since.

Strikes are less common in Quebec, even with its legislation banning replacement workers.

To those who still say this bill would result in more strikes, I will remind them where the state of play stands at the federal level. We are very fortunate to have the absolute best mediators at the federal labour department. The federal mediation and conciliation service has resolved 96% of labour disputes within the last year, without a work stoppage. It is the gold standard. Ninety-six per cent of the time, most Canadians never hear about labour negotiations at federal workplaces across the country. There might be tense negotiations and they might be messy, but they are settled at the negotiating table, and that is thanks in part to our federal mediators. It is only 4% of the time that federal labour negotiations enter the public conversation.

I am often seen in the media repeating the same message I always do, which is to focus on the table. Every single time, others will be on the same evenings news I am on, repeating the same message they always do, which is to bring out back-to-work legislation and to bring out replacement workers. They ask why the feds will not step in.

We have to remember that striking is a last resort for workers. Nobody wants to lose their benefits and live off strike pay. It is an anxious, uncertain time for anyone. Collective bargaining can be hard work, but it is always the answer. Our economy depends on employers and unions staying at the table to do the work and reach the best and most resilient deals. Bill C-58 would keep parties focused on the bargaining table. That is how we find stability and certainty in our supply chains and our entire economy. Every industry and bargaining table is different, but our goal in all of them is the same: to keep parties focused at the table, create a more predictable process and remove the distractions. That is what this legislation would do for businesses, employers and unions alike.

This is not just the smart thing to do; it is also the right thing to do. It is something labour has been asking for since before we were even a country. The reactions I have heard from labour leaders over the past 13 days speaks to how much the bill really means to them. As Gil McGowan of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “This is Canadian politics at its best. This is Parliament working for workers.” As Bea Bruske, head of the Canadian Labour Congress said, this is a vital way to increase fairness for workers.

As Magali Picard of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec put it, this bill changes Canada's collective bargaining landscape.

As the Fish, Food & Allied Workers said in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with this bill we would be doing away with “a regressive, anti-worker practice that has long eroded collective bargaining rights.”

Last year, we passed a bill to give workers in federally regulated sectors 10 days of paid sick leave, because we learned a lot from COVID when it came to sick leave. If we, as a government, were going to be asking people to stay home for two weeks when they became sick, we had to give them the ability to do so. That bill passed in the House with unanimous consent, because we all agree workers should never have to choose between getting paid and getting better. Members will recall that, at the time, workers in the United States were striking over their ask of one day of paid sick leave to stay home from work when they are sick. In Canada, workers now get 10 days, and that passed unanimously.

When the time comes, I hope every member of the House, Liberals, New Democrats, Bloc members, Greens and Conservatives, will stand up and vote to keep collective bargaining free and fair.

This legislation is needed to keep labour relations strong in Canada, to keep employers and unions at the bargaining table, and to ban replacement workers.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of replacement workers, as we know, it has been in the news that the ambassador from South Korea has been talking to officials in Windsor about bringing in up to 1,600 replacement workers at the Stellantis plant in Windsor. In fact, they would be taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers.

I wonder whether the minister would comment on this. Is there anything in the bill that would change the fact that the current government signed the contract that allows taxpayer-funded replacement foreign workers to come into Canada?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is comparing apples to oranges. Once again, we see from the other side of the House some ability either to divert attention from or to completely obfuscate two absolutely separate issues.

What we are talking about are replacement workers who are being used as what is otherwise known in the parlance as scabs, in federally regulated sectors during the collective bargaining process during a strike or lockdown. What the hon. member is talking about is completely and utterly different.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right when he says that Quebec's anti-scab legislation has made it possible over the past 46 years to negotiate as equals and ensure that no strikes have dragged on.

He also talked about the 14-month strike at the Port of Québec. Given that it is so urgent that we pass Bill C‑58, I would like to know why he waited 14 months to do anything and why he took action to resolve the disputes in Vancouver but not in Quebec City.

Second, why wait another 18 months after the bill receives royal assent to be able to enforce the law, which will not apply in any way to longshore workers, because there is no retroactivity?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that the reason we are sticking with 18 months is that it is precisely the number that was recommended to us by the Canada Industrial Relations Board and also agreed upon with our mediator service. They are the ones who are going to have to do the refereeing, as it were. They are the ones who are going to have to bring parties together to achieve a deal.

What they did was speak to the minister and various members who had been involved in creating the piece of legislation before us, and told them that everything they said about how important and how big this legislation is, and that the unions have been asking for it for so long, is absolutely true. They also said that the people who were involved in bringing the people together to come to agreements to ensure stability and certainty in our economy need that time to train and to get the resources they need in order to be able to do their jobs. That is precisely the number they gave us, 18 months, which is the number we will listen to.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian middle class was built on the union movement, and we can see the Canadian middle class rise with union density. To the extent that we have seen a decline in union density, we have also seen a decline of the middle class.

The right to strike is fundamental to the union movement. If workers do not have the right to withhold their labour, they do not have leverage in bargaining. It is why unions have been calling for anti-scab legislation for so long and why they needed it not just in the case of lockouts, which is what the Liberals started talking about after decades, but also in the case of strikes. Therefore, I am very pleased today to see legislation that would ban replacement workers both in the context of lockouts and in the context of strikes, because that is how to fight for powerful paycheques for Canadians.

However, I am concerned about an 18-month coming-into-force period after royal assent. We know that sometimes, government officials ask for a long time to implement things, but when pressed, can do it much faster. Indeed, when it came to Quebec and B.C., we saw relatively swift implementation of their anti-scab laws. Will the minister go back to his department and press it to ensure that we could put the law into force much faster than 18 months after royal assent?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let me take the opportunity to thank the hon. member for his professionalism and the great thought that he brought to the negotiations that brought this piece of legislation to bear. I can say that I personally learned a great deal from the hon. member and from his experiences in the labour movement, and that they informed this legislation. I think he knows, too, of the great experience, fortitude and talent not only of the CIRB but also of our federal mediators. I do listen to them when they give me a number and when they back it up with their experience, talent and their record. With their 96% success record, I listen to them.

If we could get it done sooner, I would happily do so, but I will not do that until I am sure and confident that the federal mediators and the CIRB themselves are confident and sure. The stability and certainty of our supply chains is too important, and we have to acknowledge just how big a deal this really is.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. minister for his leadership during the recent strike at the port. Many of the workers from my constituency wanted to thank him. I also want to thank him for bringing the legislation before us, which was long overdue.

The minister mentioned certainty, stability and balance. Could the minister tell us how the bill would help workers while at the same time help the economy move?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am thankful for the member's guidance and counsel, as well as for that of many members of the B.C. caucus whom I relied upon during a prolonged strike that happened with longshoremen in B.C. ports. It is one that eventually came to a successful conclusion under tremendous pressure for back-to-work legislation and tremendous pressure in other ways. We stuck to the table, and we insisted that parties stick to the table. I believe that now we have a more resilient and healthier deal. I do not think I need to tell the hon. member, but I will tell the House that we are digging deeper to see whether there is anything systemic we could change in that particular workplace environment with 32 ports, to make sure that this does not happen again and that the collective bargaining process is held intact.

To answer the hon. member's question about stability and certainty, I would point, first and foremost, to the maintenance of activities agreement, which does not exist right now, which would oblige both parties to come to an agreement on the essential things that need to be done in order to maintain the workplace, to maintain the environment and to make sure there is a healthy workplace to return to. They would have two weeks to do that once the bargaining process begins, and if they do not succeed, it would be done for them through the CIRB in 90 days.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the sense of urgency I am hearing from the minister and from other members of the governing party, if I am honest, I feel like we have seen this movie before. We heard the exact same words with respect to the Canada disability benefit. There is all this talk about urgency and parties that agree. Then, the coming-into-force date is at least 18 months away. Colleagues have asked about this already, and I think it is an important question and and an important point that the minister should not simply share that parties asked for this date; I would hope that he would have asked follow-up questions about the specifics of why 18 months is required.

Can the minister share with Parliament the specific steps that were shared with him for why 18 months is required? If he does not have that, is he open to amendments to move this along more quickly once the bill comes into force?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member that I have witnessed the incredible talent, fortitude, patience and, ultimately, effectiveness of our mediators and of the CIRB on multiple occasions. Some occasions did not make headlines but came close to doing so. For instance, there was a potential WestJet strike that almost happened on the May long weekend.

The tact and ability of the mediators and the CIRB are amazing, but are based on a certain number of rules. I give credit to them, and also to union negotiators and the negotiators of the employers, many of whom know one another and get along quite well with one another. They all have jobs to do. They play a game of chess based on a certain number of rules. We would be upending that chessboard. It would change all their tactics and all their strategies. The people who have to referee those tactics and strategies, in order to make sure that the supply chains of this country remain intact, certain and stable, need to be given the time and the resources. I have complete faith and trust in them. They have shown their abilites time and time again.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns with the legislation.

I was involved in the chemical industry and the nuclear industry. In strike situations, it can be unsafe to not have replacement workers or some people to come in to keep the facility running correctly.

I noticed that in the legislation, the federal unions are not included. Why is there a difference between what they want to impose on federally operated unions and on the public sector unions? Could the minister address these concerns?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is because my jurisdiction is the private sector and the part of the private sector that is regulated by the federal government, which is telecommunications, banking, ports, rail and airlines. That is my remit, and that is the part of the code I am responsible for.

I think the maintenance of activities portion of this legislation should give the hon. member some comfort in knowing that they will have to answer those questions. They will have to make sure that essential services are looked after, and for the first time, they will be obliged to do so.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. I will start off by saying I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. Normally, our shadow minister for labour would be leading the debate on this, but he is dealing with—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am going to cut the member off quickly. As it is the first round, the hon. member would have to ask for unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable to share his time.

I take it the hon. member is asking for consent. I ask all those against the hon. member's moving the motion to please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Those who had the joy of sitting on the finance committee and listening to me speak for 18 hours while the Minister of Finance would not show up to defend her budget know I can go for 18 hours if members would like. I appreciate—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow the member to speak for 18 hours.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a motion on the floor. Those who oppose that will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am hearing a few nays. The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets has the floor.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the support from the member for Kingston and the Islands. I know that he loves to hear from me. I am disappointed in the member for Winnipeg North. There seems to be a division in the caucus on this issue.

As I was saying, our shadow minister for labour would normally lead off on this bill in second reading, but he is back home because he has had a death in his family. As the shadow minister for industry, I have been asked to lead off.

I would like to lead off by following up on the point that the member for Sarnia—Lambton made during the minister's intervention that the bill does not cover the Government of Canada, but the industries of the Government of Canada. I appreciate that the member is sticking to his knitting, but it is not unusual for the government to amend multiple bills or do omnibus bills if it truly believes in something. I think this is a bit like the shoemaker's children in that it is asking private sector companies regulated by the federal government to abide by a law that it is not asking public servants to abide by.

On the issue of replacement workers, the minister spoke quite at length, as is his right as the lead speaker and sponsor minister on the issue of replacement workers, so I would like to speak to replacement workers.

We know that one of the most critical things now is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that a record subsidy to three large multinational auto companies has been brought in by the government. It is already $6 billion over its budget, or its claim of what the subsidy is, to over $43 billion over a six-year period for some of the largest foreign multinationals there are.

In doing so, the government has refused to release what those contracts are. The reason that pertains to replacement workers is that one of those multinationals has already sent their ambassador from South Korea, who I do not believe is freelancing, as I do not think ambassadors for South Korea freelance. The ambassador was in Windsor meeting with senior officials, the mayor, the chief of police, and telling everyone that Windsor had to get prepared for 1,600 replacement workers for the Stellantis plant replacing the Canadians that the minister said would be hired.

I will throw out what the Minister of Industry said. To be clear, it was not the Minister of Labour, as I do not believe that the Minister of Labour has spoken on this. He may have outside the House but not inside the House. However, the Minister of Industry said, “Today's announcement is great news for Canadian jobs” and the Prime Minister echoed the same thing. He said, “By working together, we are creating thousands of new jobs, making a difference in the lives of people now and making sure that future generations have a clean environment to live in.”

I think that folks who heard that announcement thought that the Prime Minister was talking about southwest Ontario and Windsor, but it turns out he was talking about working together to create thousands of new jobs for people in South Korea, using $15 billion, in that instance, of taxpayer money. As our leader has said, there are 15 million households—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe we have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first speech from the Conservatives in this debate, and we are talking about the anti-scab legislation the minister has tabled and spoken to. However, this member is talking about something completely unrelated. He is talking about Stellantis, which is regulated by the Province of Ontario, concerning the workers there, and not by the federal government. He is nowhere near discussing the bill.

I am really hoping that you, Mr. Speaker, can encourage him to come back to the substance we are debating today and to be relevant.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Considering the hon. member has 20 minutes, I will ask him to tie it all together as best as he can.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Kingston and the Islands does not want us to talk about the fact that the government, once again, is hypocritical and inconsistent in applying its philosophy on replacement workers. It not applying it not only to federal government workers but also to the contracts it signed with Canadian taxpayers.

Since the minister referred to replacement workers multiple times within his speech in the context of people doing other people's jobs, talking about replacement workers is what this is about. That is the way the minister introduced it and spoke to it. If I irritate the members for bringing up the fact that they did not have the courage to sign contracts with foreign multinationals that would prohibit foreign replacement workers from being employed in these plants and instead allowed it and did not make sure that taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers were not part of the contracts they signed, then they have left themselves open to this problem.

Do the members of the government know who is disappointed by this? It is all Canadians who believed the government when it said it was protecting Canadian jobs in the unionized auto industry. All the unions that represent the auto workers in southwestern Ontario—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has a point of order.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the House, I am sure you would find unanimous consent to allow my colleague to share his time with me on this matter.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is there unanimous consent?

It is agreed.

Let us go back to the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, who I believe wanted to speak for 20 minutes, but who must now finish his speech in under 10 minutes.

He has three minutes left to get his thoughts out.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, now that the member has considerably less time, I wonder if he might hurry up in becoming relevant to the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I guess we have had a rough afternoon.

Since the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets only has three minutes, he will have to tie some of these things together and come to the crux of the discussion here today.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will come to the crux of the issue. I know the member had the joy of sitting and listening to my 18 hours in the finance committee, so I am sure he will appreciate these three minutes. Where do I go?

More replacement workers are a potential not only in the NextStar plant in Windsor, but also in the Volkswagen contract. I have had the privilege of reading the Volkswagen contract, and what is not in the Volkswagen contract, which is apparently a mirror of these things, is a prohibition on replacement workers being put into these taxpayer-funded plants.

I know members on the other side have been questioning this issue. The Government of Canada's website has a job bank and there are about 20 jobs advertised for Stellantis. It says on it who can apply for these jobs, including Canadian citizens and permanent residents or temporary residents, but, more important, other candidates with or without a valid Canadian work permit. It is right on the government website. The ambassador for South Korea has been telling us that there are going to be replacement workers at this plant.

I would ask about the other contracts the government has signed. A South Korean company is part of the Ford contract in Quebec to produce cathodes for the EV business. Can the government share with us that contract to make sure replacement workers are not being used and that the government got guarantees? Can the members share with us that in the Volkswagen contract there is a clause that says that replacement workers from outside of Canada will not be used for those jobs? It is incumbent upon the Liberals to come clean on those issues.

We have been asking for that clarity and transparency from the government. I do not believe it says in any of those contracts that the Government of Canada has the ability to prevent those contracts from being made public. If the Liberals are so opposed to replacement workers, as the minister said, why do they not show Canadians that they put their money, taxpayer money, where their mouth is and actually ensure that only Canadians will be employed in these unionized jobs in the auto industry? They are unwilling. In fact, Liberals voted against that in the industry committee last night.

I would like to know from the Liberals on the other side of the House what they are hiding. Is it that they have put clauses in these contracts to allow the replacement workers from other countries in these auto businesses? The Minister of Labour is so desperately trying to prohibit these replacement workers in federal institutions, but is signing contracts to spend $15 billion to $30 billion of taxpayer money to allow replacement workers from other countries in these auto businesses.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first elected in 1988 in the Manitoba legislature, I have always believed it is important to see anti-scab legislation. I am very grateful and proud of the fact that our current Minister of Labour has ushered in important legislation that will have a profoundly positive impact on labour from coast to coast to coast. This is not only good for labour; it is good for all Canadians.

I hope that provincial jurisdictions across Canada will join the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia in recognizing that the best way to support labour is to have good legislation. That is exactly what this anti-scab legislation is. I hope to see other provinces follow suit and look at what the federal minister is providing: good, strong leadership on a very important labour issue.

The member can provide his thoughts on what I just said and whatever else he would like.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the great benefit he is seeking from all levels of government with this legislation would be more credible if he would support our desire, and that of NDP members, frankly, who voted to release these contracts publicly last night, which the Liberals stopped, to see that the company has put their money where their mouth is and is not going to allow foreign taxpayer-funded replacement workers in the good, unionized auto jobs in this country, which they purport to be trying to protect.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are all quite happy to see Bill C‑58 tabled.

The bill addresses major inequity between what Quebec workers under provincial and federal jurisdiction experience. I would remind the House that Quebec passed similar legislation in 1977.

Since we are dealing with a minority government, the only problem is that we are talking about 18 months before the bill is implemented. Eighteen months is a long time. By then, we may well have had two more minority governments.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. What does he think about the delay, which I find huge?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the government will probably take longer than 18 months to release the contracts on the deals that have been done. I do not know why we would want to do that in the auto business. I would remind the member from the Bloc that two of the subsidies in the auto business, where replacement workers can be brought in through the agreement, unless we are shown that it is not in the contracts by releasing them, are in Quebec. One of them, in fact, is in the leader of the Bloc Québécois's riding. I would think they would want to know that the Northvolt plant has the ability, potentially, to bring in Swedish workers. If the Liberals want to dispute it, they can release the contracts. The other one, which I mentioned earlier, is for EV battery parts and is with a South Korean company. Let us make sure that it is not doing that as well.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the fall economic statement yesterday, the government projected that, over the next year, unemployment is going to be up by 1% in Canada. I absolutely agree with the member that investments in battery plants have to lead to good union jobs here, although he did not say “good union jobs”. I will give him the opportunity in a moment.

What I am concerned about is that he did not talk about the legislation, and he is using replacement workers in a very different sense than the sense relevant to the legislation. If the Conservatives want to coin a new term, that is their business, but they should not do it to conflate issues and distract from the fact that they clearly do not want to talk about bringing home powerful paycheques for Canadian workers by protecting their right to strike with anti-scab legislation.

Would he now like to take a moment to talk about replacement workers in the relevant sense, who are people who take the job of someone out on strike or in a lockout, and tell us what the Conservative position is on this bill? He has not even talked about the content of the bill yet despite us being almost at the 15-minute mark.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what brings home powerful paycheques and powerful union paycheques are contracts to build auto plants that do not involve bringing in replacement workers from South Korea, Sweden and other countries in Europe.

Perhaps the hon. member should defend the unionized auto jobs and the 7% unemployment rate that exists in Windsor. The government is refusing to ensure that those good-paying union jobs go to auto workers in southwest Ontario.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for standing up in the House of Commons and raising the important issue of the replacement workers who will be hired at the Stellantis battery plant in Ontario. This is a matter that concerns us greatly for several reasons. Since Bill C-58 deals with the labour force, the unionized workers of this country, we have a golden opportunity to highlight this Liberal government's lack of perspective and clear commitment toward unionized workers.

Why do we say this? Unfortunately, we recently learned that in the contracts the government signed for battery projects, contracts that involve very large contributions from Canadian taxpayers, there seem to be no guarantees about several things. There is no guarantee that the jobs will be for Canadian workers. There is no guarantee that the natural resources used will be from Canada. There is no guarantee that these resources will be processed here. When I say there are no guarantees, I am assuming there are none, because I have not seen the contracts, though I would like to.

Under the Stellantis contract, the company will be getting $15 billion. This breaks down to $1,000 per Canadian household. When each family in Canada files their income tax return next year, it could be said that $1,000 of what they pay the federal and provincial governments will be going to Stellantis.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît on a point of order.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the respect I have for my colleague, he knows full well that he is completely off topic. We are debating a bill about anti-scab legislation. He is taking advantage of this, with the Chair's full knowledge, to debate a topic that is being dealt with at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I believe he should take parliamentarians seriously, be rigorous, and debate the bill we are seized with today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As always, members are allowed to stray from the subject, perhaps far too far. I would ask the hon. member to make sure his speech remains germane to the subject at hand.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks.

I will make a very direct connection. Bill C‑58 states that the Liberals will implement the legislation in 18 months. Once again, the Liberals are making a promise they will not keep.

I want to demonstrate here in my speech to all my colleagues that the current government's word is not worth much, so I want to look at what they have written on paper and see what that will prove. That is why we are anxious see the contracts of the Stellantis plant and of Northvolt, whose plant will be built in the Bloc Québécois leader's riding, Beloeil—Chambly.

In the Volkswagen contract, what kind of commitments were made to ensure that Canadians' money will be given to Canadian workers? That is our concern in the case of Stellantis. We absolutely must have access to these contracts, and given the magnitude of public funds involved—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert on a point of order.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Chair ruled earlier. She gave the member a break, but he is taking advantage. That was two minutes ago and he is still hammering on about Stellantis, which has nothing to do with the extremely important bill we are now debating.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As always, we try to provide some leeway. At the same time, I am trying to do my best to ask the member to make a connection between the two matters he is attempting to raise.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the important thing is to know if these contracts and bills being introduced today are of any value to Canadians. That is a very good question we must ask ourselves.

Unfortunately, what we have realized, what we have seen and what we have discovered is that 1,600 jobs at the Stellantis plant are reserved for foreign workers to replace Canadian workers who could have been hired to do the work. We know because the company itself contacted the chief of police and the municipal authorities to say they needed places to house 1,600 foreign workers to replace the workers. That is really alarming.

Let me continue. In the call for tenders, to show the extent to which—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The member for Elmwood—Transcona on a point of order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the important questions raised during this debate is whether the Conservatives actually know what a replacement worker is. We are starting to wonder whether they even understand the term.

Perhaps our colleague could just reassure us that he does in fact know what a replacement worker is, notwithstanding the spin that the Conservatives are putting on the term today in the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would say that that is a good question to bring up when we get to questions and comments. Nevertheless, I will ask the member to resume debate on Bill C‑58 and try to explain the connection with the Stellantis issue, if possible.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do not believe the Liberals intend to implement this bill in 18 months' time. They want to get through the next election and let the debate die down on its own. That is the reality.

How can I be sure about that? I see it when I look at the contracts that have been signed but that we have not seen, the contracts that will allow for a third of the employees hired at Stellantis to come from overseas. If anyone does not believe me, if people and the NDP are not worried, I for one am very concerned about what is happening.

Let us consider the criteria in the job postings that have been published. Candidates applying for the position of general affairs specialist will have to be fluent in Korean. The company is looking for an electrode quality engineer. These are well-paid jobs. The job posting says that bilingualism in English and Korean is preferred. The plant down there is not even asking for a little bit of French.

What about the plant that will be built in the riding of the leader of the Bloc Québécois? Does the leader of the Bloc Québécois want to know whether the spinoffs of the plant that will be built in his riding will provide jobs to his constituents?

Is anyone making sure that the union jobs created through the contract the federal government has signed with these multinationals will go to Quebeckers?

Will there be the same requirement for knowledge of French for these jobs, or is the company going to demand knowledge of Swedish? Is it going to ask for knowledge of German for the other plant, over in Ontario? It is very worrying.

This is why it is absolutely necessary that we get to see these contracts. We cannot take the Prime Minister's word for it. He underestimated the cost of this project by several billion dollars before the shovels even hit the ground. He said the project would break even in five years. We now know that it will take 20 years.

As for this government's plans to implement Bill C‑58 in 18 months, I will believe it when I see it. In my opinion, what worries Canadians now is whether the money that Canadian families are giving the government is being used to fund good union jobs for Canadian workers.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope you will reread that speech if you have time after your workday is done, because what you just saw was a perfect example of a Conservative member from Quebec feeling uneasy about his party's position.

Quebec has long-standing anti-scab legislation. The federal government does not. Now a bill has suddenly come along, and this member is ill at ease with his party's position. He would not be able to look his constituents in the eye and tell them he opposes anti-scab legislation. He is making all kinds of excuses.

Now, I am going to ask him a very simple question. Should the Conservatives form the next government, will the Conservative Party introduce a federal anti-scab bill?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the interests of all Quebeckers at heart, particularly those of voters in the riding of Beloeil—Chambly.

Let me quote the Bloc Québécois leader, who said Northvolt's involvement in his riding “could help Vallée-du-Richelieu develop a whole innovative, high added-value supply chain”.

I would like the government to show us, in the contract, the guarantees it secured regarding workers. Will the workers be Quebeckers? Will francophone Quebec workers be able to participate and be hired? What about the natural resources? Will the company be able to get them from Abitibi? What about processing? I was mayor of a mining town, and I saw our materials get processed all over the world, without a cent staying in this country.

These are valid questions, and I am very proud to tell Quebeckers I am here to defend their interests.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from Mégantic—L'Érable is an honourable member, so I was rather confused when neither he nor the speaker before him addressed any of the content of the bill and seemed to not understand the definition of “replacement workers”.

I wondered why, as an honourable member, he would try to conflate these two ideas and distract from the matter at hand. I then realized that it is because his party has never supported the rights of workers and has voted against precisely this kind of legislation on numerous occasions. In fact, in 2016, his colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, said in the House:

If we pass this bill, it would prevent companies...from hiring replacement workers during disputes and upset the balance of power at the negotiating table. Let us not forget that striking workers can always go work somewhere else. However, under the bill, [businesses] would not be able to hire people from outside.

In our opinion, this disrupts the balance of power....

Could the member help the House understand whether that is still his party's position and whether he will be voting for the bill before us?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that the member of this costly NDP-Liberal coalition is worried, because he just referred to a bill from 2016 that is still not in force. He thinks that this government will now do what it says it will do with Bill C-58. Personally, what worries me are the jobs that will be available tomorrow in the Richelieu region.

Could this government be transparent for once and clearly prove to all Canadians, with documentary evidence, that it has taken the necessary measures to ensure that jobs created with Canadians' money will be jobs for Canadians?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was amazing that neither he nor the Conservative member who spoke before him mentioned the legislation we are talking about today. This really emphasizes the Conservative position on unions and reminds me of a statement by Mark Hancock, the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who said about the member for Carleton winning the Conservative leadership:

It’s too bad that, unlike [the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle], [the member for Carleton] does not hold American citizenship, because he would be right at home as Governor of a state like Alabama.

[The member for Carleton] is a career politician who has been collecting a six-figure salary on the public’s dime since he was 24, and he’s spent every minute of his time in office fighting against fair wages, good pensions and a better life for working people....

His leadership will be a disaster for working people in Canada.

Could the member comment on the statement?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what really worries me is how the Prime Minister can have much contempt for Canadian workers and show them so little respect, while his government plans to hand over Canadian families' money to South Korean workers at the Stellantis plant.

How can we be sure he has not signed the same type of agreement with the two other battery plants in Canada that will also receive a great deal of public money? The only way is for us to see the contracts.

What is the government so afraid of? Why is it so unwilling to show Canadians these contracts? It is simply because it has not done its job.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening in support of Bill C‑58. I will say from the outset that I am very proud that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the anti-scab bill. We have been asking for so long that it be passed quickly. We urge all parties in the House to do whatever it takes to pass it as quickly as possible. We will be very pleased when the bill truly passes, including in the Senate, and the government hastens to implement it.

I am sure that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou will provide more details on this than I will. The longshore workers at the Port of Québec are currently on strike in her riding. They have waited long enough. They saw that their right to strike was not being respected because ports are under federal jurisdiction.

I have to say that Bill C-58 is the culmination of a lengthy undertaking. It constitutes a major step forward for workers. They earned it. This bill should have been passed a long time ago. It restores the balance of power between employers and employees in labour disputes once and for all.

The use of scabs has been banned in Quebec since 1977. It is now 2023, and there are still unionized employees in Quebec who work for federally regulated businesses who do not have the same rights. It is as though we have two categories of unionized workers in Quebec. We therefore have a tendency to forget that the use of scabs is completely archaic. We must allow all workers to assert their rights in a labour dispute. We cannot really tolerate the use of scabs. We are wondering why it took the government so long to introduce this bill, given that it has been in office since 2015.

In every sector under federal jurisdiction, when there is a labour dispute and when workers use their ultimate pressure tactic, when the workers choose and use their right to strike, the employer can simply resort to using scabs. That means the power relationship is broken in favour of the employer. The power is given to the employer. There is an imbalance in the bargaining relationship, the power relationship. It is completely unfair. In 2023, it makes absolutely no sense.

We are talking about people who work for railway companies, airlines, the banking sector, and the ports across Quebec and Canada. We know that currently in Quebec there are many workers on strike. Imagine if scabs were used to replace the 420,000 workers on strike in Quebec. That would upset the balance that allows workers to assert their rights. That would be completely unacceptable. That is why we think it is high time to implement Bill C‑58 as soon as possible.

The bill was introduced by the government. We have to assume that they will vote in favour of it. We also know that the NDP supports it. The Bloc Québécois is also on board. That means three parties agree that the bill should pass. Normally, based on the usual legislative process, if the bill makes it to committee, we should be able to pass it by Christmas. The three recognized parties in the House that are publicly advocating for the bill's passage need to get to work to pass it quickly.

As I said earlier, everyone except the Conservatives agrees that we need anti-scab legislation. I would be remiss if I did not mention the speech by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who is from Quebec. He did not say a word about his position, as a member from Quebec, on the whole issue of scabs.

I can say that this came as a great surprise to me, because he is usually a very diligent MP. It is clear here that he is just toeing the party line and avoiding taking a stand.

I am probably coming off as a little impatient. Frankly, I am stunned that we are debating such an important bill today, so many years after Quebec passed similar legislation.

All the same, I would like to remind my colleagues that this is not the first time we have debated such a bill in the House of Commons. In 1990, a certain MP for Richelieu, who is now the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel and our one and only dean in the House, introduced a bill on this subject. At that time, there were five Bloc Québécois MPs; they were recognized as independent MPs. All that to say, it has been a long time. This is not our first attempt. Thirty-three years ago, the dean of today's House introduced an anti-scab bill. Members can understand my impatience. I think it is amply justified.

Over the years, 10 other anti-scab bills have been tabled by Bloc Québécois members, on top of those tabled by NDP members. That is quite a number of times that we have worked together to try and create modern legislation to govern the working relationship between union members and employers.

I will take a moment to commend the members who have teamed up with workers and unions over the years. Bernard St‑Laurent, a former member for Manicouagan, introduced a bill in 1995. Osvaldo Nunez did so in 1996. Ghislain Fournier, another former member for Manicouagan, did so in 1998, 2001 and 2002. He was quite determined and introduced his bill three times.

I am also thinking of Monique Guay, a former member for Laurentides, with whom I had the opportunity to sit. She introduced her bill in 2002. I am thinking of Roger Clavet, a former member for Louis‑Hébert, who introduced his bill in 2004. Richard Nadeau, a former member for Gatineau, tabled one in 2006. I am also thinking of Mario Laframboise, a member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who introduced his bill in 2010.

People have put a great deal of effort into this issue. Obviously, I am thinking of my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville, who introduced her own anti-scab bill this year, Bill C‑276, to put pressure on the current Liberal government, which was being slow to keep its promise.

The Bloc Québécois wants this bill. We are working tirelessly with workers to get it passed and, above all, to get it implemented.

Given that background, I cannot understand why the government decided provide for an 18-month delay before this bill comes into force. I find that very hard to accept. Anyone who cares about workers cannot understand why this bill, which was long awaited by unionized workers, most members of the House, and especially the Port of Québec strikers, will not come into force until 18 months after it receives royal assent.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to convince the Liberals to drop that provision, which makes no sense, and that we will all be able to agree that the dignity of our striking workers is at stake.

I will close by saying that, if we go through the process quickly in the House, then there will be work to do in committee. I hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will rise to the occasion and unite to give our unionized workers their dignity. They have been deserving of this bill for a long time.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for expressing her opinion so clearly, unlike our previous colleague who was having a really hard time getting to the point.

The right to strike can be compromised when an employer is able to use scabs. How will the proposed amendments help all federally regulated workers in Quebec and Canada benefit from a strong right to strike?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sherbrooke is a member from Quebec. She knows full well that unionized workers in Quebec who have a collective agreement have the right to bargain and to strike.

A strike is not the primary outcome in bargaining. Labour tends to avoid striking, using it as a last resort. The last thing a worker wants when they use their tool of last resort is for the employer to have the privilege to say that the employees can go on strike, but it will bring in replacement workers, which it has the right to do as a federally regulated employer.

The bill seeks to fix that, but I strongly encourage my colleague from Sherbrooke, since she is a member from Quebec, to convince her government to remove the clause that provides for an 18‑month delay before the legislation comes into force.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier on we heard two Conservative MPs speak. For 30 minutes or so they had one job, and that was to state whether they were in favour of hiring scabs or not. They refused to do so.

Does my colleague think that the MPs were on strike because they did not want to speak in favour or was this a lockout imposed by the Conservative leader?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this deserves a lot of thought.

It is true that it is disappointing. We have seen our Conservative colleagues do this on a number of issues. I would like to believe that, deep down, the Conservatives from Quebec want to vote in favour of the bill. It is too bad that the boss, the one running the show, does not want that. We have to make major compromises in life when we are in politics. It seems that we even have to ride roughshod over our principles and our hearts, because when we heard the two Conservative members speak, we did not get the feeling they would be supporting the bill.

I still have hope. I am a Sagittarius and therefore an eternal optimist. I sincerely hope that the Conservatives will wake up, get up to speed, modernize and say that this bill is a really good deal for unionized workers.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was all ears when my colleague spoke. I want to tell her about Monday, November 13. I was at the Port of Québec with my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and we met with workers who have been on strike for over 14 months. They confirmed that Conservative MPs from Quebec City have yet to visit them on site. That worries them a great deal, because there are all kinds of polls and deals lurking on the horizon. They are wondering what is going to happen to them.

That is when we came up with the idea of asking the government to cut time as much as possible on this bill so that we can get it passed before it is too late. I would like my colleague to comment on the possibility that we may not persuade the government to shorten the18-month deadline in question. That could potentially leave us with a Conservative government that would pull the plug on this bill.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear. If this bill is not passed and implemented before Christmas, or when the House returns, I share my colleague's opinion that it will never be implemented.

I do not want to be unkind to the government, but we have some concern that it may have introduced the bill only to clear its conscience, thinking that the conditions attached to it would scuttle any chances of the bill being passed. The bill's failure to pass would then come as a relief to the government, which never really wanted it to pass in the first place. It was only putting on a show.

I am relying on the government's Quebec members to flatly refuse to have two categories of union members. We encourage everyone to vote for the bill and, most of all, to shorten the 18-month timeline.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me.

In 1977, 46 years ago, the Government of Quebec passed anti-scab legislation. Anti-scab legislation has been around for as long as I have been alive. It was meant to force employers to negotiate in good faith. Keep in mind that before this legislation was passed, employers had no compunction about hiring new workers while their regular employees were on strike or locked out. Because of this practice, employers had no interest in negotiating to improve working conditions or salaries, since strikes or lockouts had no impact on the company's bottom line.

For 46 years, no strikes or lockouts have dragged out in Quebec, except for those involving federally regulated businesses. It turns out that we have an example of that right now. Over 14 months ago, the Société des arrimeurs de Québec locked out its longshore workers at the Port of Québec. They are not on strike; they are locked out. Because this business's activities fall under federal jurisdiction in Ottawa, it has the right to use scabs, who do not have the required health and safety training. Therefore, every day, they walk right by qualified workers. It is unbelievable that Quebec workers are not protected by the current laws in the area where they live and work, when there have been laws in place for 46 years.

This is another example of Quebec being forward-thinking, compared with the rest of Canada. In the case of the Port of Québec longshore workers, it is not just about protecting these workers, it is also about protecting the public. I would remind the House that scabs have no training in health and safety or in the transshipment of goods. In recent months, there has been an increase in incidents related to red dust and nickel, which pose a danger to the lung health of the people of Beauport—Limoilou and may even reduce their life expectancy in the event of prolonged or repeated exposure.

On top of that, ammonium nitrate is being transported through the Port of Québec. Ammonium nitrate is a product used in fertilizer manufacturing, but it can be highly explosive under certain conditions. The Valero refinery is right across from the Port of Québec in Lévis. A simple spark could lead to a disaster that could extend all the way to Lévis. Hiring scabs, also known as replacement workers to sound better, poses a real danger to the workers themselves, to the surrounding population and to Quebec's economy. If a serious accident were to occur, it could potentially bring operations at the Port of Québec to a halt. In Quebec, 80% of our goods arrive by the river.

The workers are simply asking for better living conditions. If Canada were not 46 years behind Quebec, the lockout at the Port of Québec would never have lasted 14 months.

When the minister replied to me a few weeks ago that anti-scab legislation was going to be introduced, but that it had to be drafted in such a way as to protect the bargaining power of employers at the Port of Vancouver and the Port of Montreal, I was somewhat dubious. How could encouraging employers to negotiate in good faith hurt them?

Quebec's experience shows that anti-scab legislation improves negotiations without giving more leverage to either party. That makes things more equal than they are at the moment. That is a little message for our Conservative friends, although “friends” may be stretching it.

The minister's response a few weeks ago was very telling. The one he gave me today is also very telling. He mentioned Montreal and Vancouver, as if those are the only two ports in Canada. I should point out that a few months ago, the government did not negotiate for long with the Port of Vancouver to get the workers back to work. However, it has never negotiated with the Port of Québec. It is keeping mum and carefully ignoring what is happening in Quebec City, regardless of what the minister is saying today.

Has the government ever had an opportunity to make up for lost time by passing anti-scab legislation? Yes, it has had at least 11 opportunities to do so, and that is just counting Bloc Québécois bills, not even those of the NDP.

When I am told that we need to think about Vancouver and Montreal, that is fine. However, we see that the government is able to move quickly to resolve issues in the rest of Canada, but it does not do the same for Quebec City.

In 2022, two bills were introduced to put an end to the use of scabs, a shameful, unethical practice from another century. The Government of Canada is saying that it is very urgent that we pass anti-scab legislation, but did it move either of those bills up on the schedule? No, it did not. It had to introduce its very own bill. Because of all that, I have a hard time believing that the government really thinks that this is urgent.

Let us look at what the government's Bill C-58 says. We will vote in favour of the bill. There will even be a letter signed by a whole host of academics from across Canada who support the bill. It will be out in a few days. I spoke with some of those academics and they noticed the same flaws that I am going to mention. It is important that we talk about that in committee, so that we can fix as many of the flaws as possible.

For the first flaw, subclause 9(5) states that the employer can use the services of any contractor other than a dependent contractor or any employee of another employer if they were already hired before notice to bargain collectively was given, to perform the same duties as or substantially similar duties to the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit. The services of that contractor or employee can continue to be used in the same way once the strike or lockout is over.

That means that before giving notice to bargain collectively, the employer can hire someone to do the same work as the unionized employee. Of course not a lot of employers are going to say that, since a collective bargaining notice is coming, they are going to hire people and have a surplus of workers, but when there is a lockout they will have enough people. There are not a lot of employers who can afford to have a surplus of labour because that costs a lot of money. Nevertheless, some might see this loophole. This is a flaw that does not respect the spirit of the law. We agree, but there may be some who will try. My advice is to ensure that no employer can use this loophole in Bill C‑58.

The second hitch or problem is that Bill C-58 is not retroactive. This bill will have zero impact on the workers at the Port of Québec. The employer will be able to continue using scabs indefinitely, until its employees are sick and tired of waiting for a job, work and a salary coming in. It just does not make sense. This bill must be retroactive.

Here is the third problem. If an employer has several operating sites, but only one is on strike or locked out, it can take workers from the site that is on strike or locked out and send them to one of the other sites. That is not right. The Quebec law addresses this. An employer cannot transfer employees from one location to another. This should also be included in the Canadian legislation.

Now, let us talk about effective enforcement. That is the fourth problem. It is so urgent to implement this bill that the government wants it to come into force 18 months after it receives royal assent, because the negotiators need a lot of time to sit down at the table and negotiate. It seems that they need training for this.

Take Quebec, for example. It has been an expert in the field for 46 years. Let us calculate the time it takes to complete each step in the process of passing a bill. First reading does not take very long, only a few minutes. Second reading takes a few hours. At the committee stage, things can slow down. Third reading takes a few hours. Then the bill moves on to the Senate for first, second and third readings, committee deliberation, and so on. All that time can add up to weeks, if not months. On top of that, we have to add another 18 months. Is this a joke? No one is going to get me to believe that the negotiator is incapable of sitting down at the table.

That much time is an eternity. All of this leads me to believe that, even though the government calls the situation an emergency, it thinks that workers, especially workers at the Port of Québec, can be easily fooled with smoke and mirrors and will believe anything.

Canada's delay in protecting workers' rights, the flaws in Bill C‑58 and the timelines imposed show that federally regulated workers living in Quebec would be better off if Quebec was an independent country sitting at the table with other nations.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague. I am not sure why, but I feel like talking to her about the end of her speech, which I found interesting.

Here we are, discussing a bill on scabs when a similar bill was passed in Quebec 46 years ago and has been in force ever since. Quebec is the province in Canada with the most social housing, the highest rate of unionization, the highest rate of working women and the lowest rate of child poverty. All this is thanks in part to early childhood centres, which were created by Pauline Marois in the days of the Parti Québécois. Quebec is the province that is most effective at fighting climate change. Quebec is inspiring Canada in a whole host of areas.

I would like to hear more from my colleague. Would we not be better off becoming our own country? Canada could continue to draw inspiration from us once we are on our own.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can only agree with everything my colleague said, of course.

When a nation is independent and uses its power, that only makes it want more because it sees all the potential it has. That is what is happening with Quebec.

Following Quebec's example is no better or worse than following the example of Scandinavian countries, Germany, England, or other countries. Canada would simply have a closer neighbour to emulate, instead of looking for examples on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the response from the Conservatives is a bit surprising. They seem to be more focused on contracts than the legislation.

In recognizing the legislation, the member made reference to the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia, and the federal government is now bringing forward anti-scab legislation. I think that sends a very powerful and positive message to labour in all regions of the country.

Would the member agree that other jurisdictions should look at duplicating what B.C., Quebec and now Ottawa are moving forward with?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, they should definitely follow the example of Quebec and British Columbia.

Ottawa should do so by reducing the time it will take to implement the bill. The 18-month wait makes no sense. We should follow the example of these two provinces because we are currently avoiding negotiations that are not happening.

With anti-scab legislation, both parties are forced to sit down, and it is not true that workers have the upper hand. This gives them leverage that they do not have when there are scabs. The employer also has leverage when it comes to working conditions and wage conditions. The negotiation process is fairer and more equal, and that benefits everyone.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. Quebec has been a leader in this area, as in many others. It passed anti-scab legislation 46 years ago, and British Columbia followed its lead. Let us not forget that British Columbia also has this type of legislation, and the sky did not fall in on either of those economies. On the contrary, labour disputes are shorter and there is less tension, less violence and a better balance of power for workers.

The member spoke a lot about the Port of Québec, where 81 longshore workers have been locked out for 14 months. That is outrageous, but it is not the only lockout. A lockout just started at Vidéotron in Gatineau, and there are already rumours of Vidéotron using replacement workers. The situation at Vidéotron in Gatineau may just be a preview of what will happen at all of the Vidéotron locations in eastern Quebec.

Before the bill comes into force, and I hope it will before 18 months have passed, will the Bloc Québécois speak out against the use of replacement workers and scabs in Quebec by Vidéotron and Pierre Karl Péladeau?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, these rumours circulate every time a strike happens in a federally regulated workplace.

They circulate because the federal government has no anti-scab legislation. If such a situation were to happen, the current legislation would not apply because it is not retroactive. This scenario must be avoided. The bill should include a retroactivity clause. We have to ensure that the bill comes into force as soon as possible, far sooner than 18 months from now. It does not take 18 months to learn how to sit down at a negotiating table.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and emotion that I rise in the House to speak about an anti-scab bill introduced by the government. Other political parties have tabled many similar bills in recent years. They have always been rejected by the Conservatives and Liberals. Today is an historic day. Thanks to the work we have done, there is now a bill that has a good chance of being passed and becoming law.

Today is a great day for workers in Quebec and across Canada. It is a great day for workers' rights. Workers will have the opportunity to respectfully negotiate decent collective agreements and better working conditions, with a real balance of power at the bargaining table.

Let us enjoy this moment. Generations of men and women have supported unions and fought to have federal anti-scab legislation. We are getting there. This is it. We are almost there. I think we need to celebrate this moment as a major victory for all workers. It is also a major victory for all the generations of New Democrats who pushed and worked to ensure that these rights were heard and respected.

I would like to thank my team here in Ottawa and my team in Montreal for all the work they have done on this file. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the entire NDP caucus, both the current caucus and those that came before it. They worked extremely hard to get here. I would also like to thank the NPD leader, who has always been very supportive of this issue.

Let us savour the moment. This is a first in the history of this Parliament. We will be able to work hard so that Port of Québec longshore workers, Vidéotron employees, Port of Montreal workers and all employees in the federal sector who are subject to the Canada Labour Code will never again have to experience situations where scabs take their place during a labour dispute that then lasts longer, becomes more tense, costs everyone more and violates workers' rights.

Let us work together so that what is happening right now at the Port of Québec and what may happen at Vidéotron never happens again. In the future, let us protect the rights of workers in this country.

The House resumed consideration from November 22 of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the speech I started the day before yesterday to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-58. For the first time, the federal government is proposing anti-scab legislation for all workers governed by the Canada Labour Code, so, workers under federal jurisdiction, who represent 10% of the country's labour force.

This is a very important debate. This bill is important because it is historic. For generations, labour activists who support workers' rights have been fighting to have the government uphold workers' fundamental right to strike, to ensure that during a labour dispute employers can no longer use replacement workers, to use the polite term, or scabs, to put it bluntly.

This is a big day. We need to emphasize the importance of the step that is being taken today. We will continue to exert pressure so that this bill is improved in committee and passed. Obviously, some aspects of the bill need to be improved, but the fact that the government has introduced such a bill for the first time in history is a good sign.

Over the years, the NDP has introduced a number of anti-scab bills, nine of them, I think, in the past 10 or 12 years. I introduced a bill last year to give the Liberal government a helping hand and point it in the right direction. We managed to hold discussions and make some progress. Today, we have something interesting to look at.

It could make a huge difference for tens of thousands of people. We wish this legislation had come along sooner, because people are suffering now without it. We want to fix the problem so that painful situations like these never happen again.

I get pretty disheartened when organizations like the Conseil du patronat du Québec, Quebec's council of employers, tell us that this bill is not relevant or necessary right now. There are still people on picket lines or locked out who see replacement workers take their place during a labour dispute. That was the case until very recently. It has psychological consequences for workers and it impacts the balance of power between management and unions. It also has very serious and significant consequences for families going through extremely tense times.

The Conseil du patronat du Québec says this is not relevant or timely, but that is simply not the case. Just think about Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy, which was in a labour dispute two years ago, if memory serves me correctly. The workers were replaced by scabs. A small team of 12 or 14 employees was replaced. It took longer and it was more difficult to resolve the problem because replacement workers were brought in.

Let us also not forget the longshore workers at the Port of Québec, who have been locked out for 14 months now. They were kicked out by their own employer, who refused to negotiate in good faith. Because of the lack of legislative measures in the Canada Labour Code, employers can hire replacement workers or scabs. This means that, for the past 14 months, 81 longshore workers have seen people take their place every day on the job site, even though those folks do not have the necessary skills, cause a bunch of accidents and destroy equipment.

It upsets the balance of power and undermines the possibility of reaching a reasonable settlement that works for both parties when replacement workers are given the job and perform the tasks of workers who are out on strike or, in the case of the Quebec longshore workers, are locked out. It is even worse in this case, because this was not their choice. Workers just want decent working conditions. In this case, it is not even about money. It is more about work-life balance and having more humane working hours.

This is happening now. We are not talking about 50 years ago, we are not talking about Murdochville, we are not talking about past battles. We are talking about what is happening right now, today. The situation with the longshore workers at the Port de Québec is tough. It is not the only one and may not be the last, unfortunately.

Now there is a dispute at Videotron, in Gatineau. Again, this is a federally regulated sector. We talked about sports. We could also talk about airports or the rail sector. Here we are talking about telecommunications, another federally regulated sector. It is possible that replacement workers are taking the jobs of the unionized workers in Videotron's west sector, in Gatineau. This would make it much harder to reach a settlement, to get a good contract for the employees.

I want to come back to the example of Videotron because it is an interesting one. Videotron is owned by Pierre Karl Péladeau, who is proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the legislative advances made by his province. Quebec was the first province to implement anti-scab legislation in 1977. British Columbia followed suit several years later. If Pierre Karl Péladeau respects the spirit of the law in Quebec, then he should not use replacement workers in his own company. We will see what happens with Videotron in Gatineau, but I want to make it clear that when workers organize to collectively defend their rights and improve their working conditions, which is well within their rights to do, there has to be a balance of power. For years, that balance of power did not exist. For example, unions were prohibited in Canada until 1872. They were illegal.

It was a crime to collectively organize in order to defend a group's rights and try to improve pay or work organization. It really is thanks to the work of generations of union activists that we have been able to achieve better working conditions. In fact, if we look closely, we realize that before unions emerged and took action, spearheading major battles, there really was no middle class. There were extremely rich owners and extremely poor workers. The workers merely survived, trying to work hard and provide for their children so that these children could take their place in the factory and continue to ensure profits and added value for the owners of the means of production.

It took the courage and action of generations of workers, men and women, who stood up and decided that they had to fight together to lift themselves out of misery and poverty, to get good paycheques, good working conditions and benefits. In fact, the union movement created the middle class. There was no middle class before. It did not exist. In the 19th century there was no middle class. People were either very rich or very poor. Workers struggled to survive under horrific health and safety conditions.

The goal was to establish a balance of power at the bargaining table and negotiate with management, with the employer, to tell them that workers wanted their share of the profits and to live with dignity. There would be no profits without all these workers doing their jobs in factories to produce the goods and services sold. This was how the middle class got its start and managed to rise above poverty and misery. Finally, middle class workers could buy a house, have a pension, look forward to retirement and get insurance and benefits.

That is how we were able to create a middle class in Quebec and Canada, as well as in the United States, of course, France and England.

The problem with not having anti-scab legislation is that the balance of power at the bargaining table is completely undermined. Going on strike essentially sends a message to the employer that production is being halted and that there will be an economic impact arising from this work stoppage, since the product can no longer be sold on the market. If production continues because replacement workers can be hired to keep doing the work, the balance of power at the bargaining table has just been destroyed. It is all well and good for the employer to say that employees can go on strike for as long as they like and that it is not the employer's problem, because, in any case, production and service will continue, the employer will continue to make money, revenue will come in, and there is no problem.

This destroys the workers' bargaining power and drags out the labour disputes. The employer has no incentive to reach an agreement with the union to provide good or acceptable working conditions to its workers. This also creates more tension, which can lead to violence. Imagine being a worker on the picket line every morning who sees someone go in to take their place, their salary and keep the business in operation. Frustration and anger run high. In the past we have seen violent acts and interpersonal conflicts that are totally understandable.

That is why, for hundreds of thousands of workers at the federal level, it is important to have this legislation that will simply provide balance at the bargaining table. Such legislation has existed in Quebec since 1977 in every sector in Quebec, of which there are very many. We are talking about 90% of the labour force. This also exists in British Columbia and the sky has not fallen. Economic development has carried on. In fact, the labour disputes have been fewer, shorter and less violent. That is good for everyone.

Some members of the House use the term “common sense” a lot. I think that anti-scab legislation is just common sense. We are not trying to dictate what workers' wages, working conditions or contracts will look like. We just want to give workers a chance to exercise their constitutional rights and to be in a position where they can use their balance of power, have a say at the bargaining table and negotiate a good employment contract.

I began working as a union representative for the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 2002. Two weeks later, the labour dispute at Videotron began. What I saw 20 years ago is the impact of the employer being able to use replacement workers, or scabs, and just how much that served to prolong the dispute. I was happy to be working with that union, but it was a long, hard battle. In the end, the union was successful. The technicians stayed in the union. However, it is important to avoid this type of situation in the future, like the situations at the Port of Québec and Videotron in Gatineau right now. We must ensure that there is an equal balance of power. It is a matter of fairness. We are not trying to favour one side over the other. These are fundamental rights that must be defended.

I am extremely proud of the fact that the NDP leveraged its strength in Parliament to help workers. I was talking about balance of power at the bargaining table, but we used our balance of power in Parliament. From the very beginning of talks on the agreement we have with the minority Liberal government, the leader of the NDP made it clear that this was an essential condition. After years of struggle, we absolutely had to have anti-scab legislation at the federal level.

I think this is an extremely important step. This direct gain is attributable to the work of the NDP caucus, my NDP colleagues and the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South. He forced the Liberals to introduce anti-scab legislation even though the Liberals have always been against it. Every time we introduced anti-scab legislation, the Liberals voted against it. I think they have seen the light, but I also think they did not have much choice. We twisted their arm a bit and, in the end, thanks to the influence of the NDP caucus and all my colleagues, we are going to get it done.

However, some obstacles remain and some aspects of the bill require improvement. My colleagues and I look forward to sending the bill to committee for improvement. One rather major obstacle right now is the time it will take to implement the bill. A second reading, a review in committee and a third reading will take time. After that the Senate will also be doing its part.

The bill states that its implementation will take 18 months. This is a major irritant for the NDP. Eighteen months is far too long. We fail to understand why it would take that long for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to adjust to the new legislative measure. We think that it might take 12 months or maybe even six months. We will therefore be applying pressure in committee to shorten the implementation time provided for this bill in light of its importance and urgency to a number of sectors of our economy. It will open the door to good working conditions for the people we represent, make room for good employment contracts and good salaries, and improve the situation of just about everyone in the country.

I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, because he emphasized the merits of the union movement. As a former union president, this means a lot to me.

I would also like to thank the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Allow me to explain why I am taking the time to pay tribute to him. Since its inception in 1989-90, the Bloc Québécois has been fighting for anti-scab legislation at the federal level, and the first bill in that regard was introduced by the current dean of the House, so I wanted to take a moment to highlight the work of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.

Here is my question for the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. There is still an 18-month delay before the bill receives royal assent. The leader of the Bloc Québécois has asked that this be done before Christmas. Does the member know the reasons for this delay?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also commend the initiatives of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who is the dean of the House. He pushed for anti-scab legislation to be passed and I appreciate all the work that has been done.

As a small point of clarification, however, the 18‑month delay is not for obtaining royal assent. It is for bringing the bill into force after obtaining royal assent.

We do not understand the reason for this major delay of 18 months. Based on the discussions we have had, it seems that it was a request from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, who needs this time. We think it is a bit much, that it is too long. I would be happy to work with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois in committee to propose amendments to fix this problem that, in our view, sets us back and will make it take too long before the bill is truly in effect. In the end, it might jeopardize the right of some workers to have the protection offered by anti-scab legislation. I would be happy to work with the member and all members in committee to fix this problem.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-58 as a substantial piece of legislation that will make a wonderful difference for the labour movement, but not only the labour movement. I think we get lost in this in the sense that it is in the best interests of all, whether for labour or employers. I genuinely believe that. It is something I have been advocating for for many years.

My question for my colleague is in regard to the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. They have had this, in particular Quebec for many years now. Could he again reinforce the benefits that those two provinces have received by having back-to-work legislation? What are his thoughts in regard to why it is important that other provincial jurisdictions follow suit now that we have two provinces and the national government moving forward on anti-scab legislation?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge difference between back-to-work legislation and anti-scab legislation. I am happy that my colleague rectified his wording at the end of his question.

Reducing the number of labour disputes has helped a lot in Quebec and British Columbia. It has been good for everyone: employees, employers and society in general. The vast majority of collective agreements—97% or 98%, I believe—are resolved without a labour dispute, strike or lockout.

Experience has taught us that, when there is a labour dispute in Quebec or British Columbia, the average time it takes to resolve it is less than when replacement workers or scabs are involved. That is good news for everyone. Quebec paved the way and British Columbia followed.

I think it is now time for the federal government to set an example and ensure that we have anti-scab legislation that will make a difference for all of society, reduce tensions and reduce the duration of labour disputes in our country. I think that is good news for everyone.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is such an important bill that will help workers across the country and help all communities across the country. As he mentioned, it has been an NDP issue for many years. I remember one of the first private member's bills I saw tabled in this House was from my former colleague Karine Trudel, who tabled very similar anti-scab legislation. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against it. However, I am so proud that we have used our power in this Parliament to bring it forward again through the government legislation we see here today.

The hon. member touched on the conflict that replacement workers often cause in communities, especially small communities, where there may not be many jobs available so there is a lot of pressure to take on replacement worker status. That conflict can often escalate into violence, as he mentioned. One of the classic examples is the Giant Mine strike of 1992, which resulted in one of the worst mass murders, I would say, in Canadian history. That conflict escalated and escalated, and eventually someone set off a bomb in the mine, killing workers.

I am wondering if he could comment on the effect that this bill would have on communities across the country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his question and comment. No one wants to see violence, people getting hurt or killed, in the context of labour disputes. That is absolutely appalling and has to be avoided. It is also true that in small communities, when everyone knows everyone else, it is even more difficult. Just think of the period after the labour dispute is resolved.

During a labour dispute, it is hard for workers to see someone coming in every day and getting their pay even though those workers still have to pay for their house and feed and clothe their children. There is a lot of anger and resentment when workers see someone basically stealing their pay. In a small community, when everyone knows everyone else, it is even more appalling. It can go on for years and years. We need to avoid that.

We need to avoid situations like the lockout of longshore workers at the Port of Québec, which has been going on for 14 months. The Vidéotron people in western Quebec may well go through the same thing today. We need to resolve this problem as quickly as possible. Federal anti-scab legislation has been needed for decades. It is time to act.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted over the introduction of this bill.

As my colleague from Repentigny said earlier, the Bloc Québécois member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel introduced the first such bill back in 1990. I know that this has been a long fight for the Bloc Québécois and for the NDP. I would also like to commend the NDP for keeping this issue front and centre over the years. When it comes to worker-related issues, I think our political parties usually sing from the same song sheet.

I would like to ask the member if he is concerned about the possibility that some political parties might oppose the bill. If an early election were called and this bill were to die on the Order Paper, could all the time we have spent working to reach this point suddenly come to nothing, when victory seems so close?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our two political parties have always worked towards this goal. I think the NDP introduced anti-scab bills before the Bloc Québécois even existed. That is just a historic fact.

We want to push for this bill to pass as quickly as possible. I do not know when the next federal election will be held. That is not really my decision or within my control. We want the bill to be sent to committee as quickly as possible so that amendments can be proposed, so that the bill can be improved and enhanced, to pass in this House and be sent to the Senate. We do not want to have to start this work all over again, since tens of thousands of workers have been waiting for this kind of measure for years now. We want this to come into force as quickly as possible. That is why we are concerned about the 18-month delay in implementing the bill.

I am ready to work with all political parties. Only one party does not seem to want to talk about this bill very much. Right now, the official opposition is not too keen to talk about it, and I do not know why. Right now, the Conservatives do not want to talk about legislation to ban replacement workers. I think it will be in everyone's interest for this bill to pass as quickly as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the anti-scab legislation. When one looks at page 22 of the Liberal Party platform from the last federal election, one will find a commitment that the Liberal Party made, under its current leadership, toward bringing forward anti-scab legislation. This is a fulfilment of that commitment.

It is really encouraging to have before us legislation that would have a very positive impact on our labour movement across the country, from coast to coast to coast. In fact, I hope that other provincial jurisdictions will look at what the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have had in place for a number of years and, now, what the federal government is proposing within this bill to bring forward anti-scab legislation, and do likewise.

My daughter, who is the MLA for the Tyndall Park riding, through a throne speech, encouraged the provincial New Democratic Party in Manitoba to bring forward anti-scab legislation. Hopefully, my home province of Manitoba will in fact be the third province to bring it in.

I approach this legislation based on a number of factors. As a member of Parliament of Winnipeg's north end and a north-end MLA for almost 20 years, I have always looked at the issue of labour as important. In fact, one thing I would like to talk about is the general strike of 1919 in Winnipeg, which was a very historic strike for Canada as a nation. It lasted for six weeks, from mid-May to virtually the end of June, and I have had the opportunity to raise the 1919 general strike on several occasions.

I would like to highlight a couple of those. Back in 2019, I attempted to get recognition of that particular strike on the floor of the House. The first thing I will quote is that request. Before I do that, I want to emphasize that the boiling point of the 1919 strike was in good part over replacement workers. Today, we are debating anti-scab legislation, which is to prevent replacement workers, and this was a theme of the 1919 general strike in the city of Winnipeg.

I am going to go to May 7, 2019, where I stood in the House from this very seat and asked the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, but first let me just recognize and appreciate the support from the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

There has been discussion among the parties and, if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House of Commons recognize the historical significance of the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, in particular on workers rights, human rights and social advocacy for over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately, we did not get unanimous consent in order to have that recognition, but I still thought it was an important issue to raise.

May 15 is a significant day; for all intents and purposes, it is when the general strike of 1919 started. On May 15, again, I stood in the House at this very same spot and said the following:

Mr. Speaker, it was a general strike. On May 15, 1919, the call was made for all workers to put down their tools at 11 a.m. The first to strike were the female telephone workers, who failed to show up for their 7 a.m. shift.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Winnipeg strike. I want to acknowledge the importance of the labour movement in Canada. Unions matter. Unions represent people, people who work hard, support their families and contribute to their communities and our economy.

Today I thank those pioneers. The labour movement has been essential to promoting fairness and inclusion in our economy. Unions fight for the middle class and have been the driving force behind the exceptional progress made on behalf of women, LGBTQ workers, indigenous workers and workers with disabilities.

When we were elected, we committed to being a real partner with labour. We stand by that commitment, and we will keep working on behalf of the workers and Canada's middle class.

I said that back in 2019; I want to reinforce just how important it is. I often talk about the middle class on the floor of the House. It is something that the Prime Minister talked about even before he became the Prime Minister of Canada: supporting Canada's middle class.

One of the first actions we took was to repeal labour legislation of the Conservative Party, through private members. That was the member, and my colleague and friend, for the Kildonan riding, the minister of labour under the government at the time.

We have worked very closely with labour to ultimately be able to materialize a substantial piece of legislation. I appreciate the fact that the NDP and the Bloc party are going to be supporting this legislation. I would love to see the Conservative Party realize that the economy works better when one has harmony within the labour force.

There is nothing wrong with supporting anti-scab legislation. It is in everybody's best interest. I would ask my Conservative colleagues across the way to recognize that fact and support the legislation. It would send a very powerful message to everyone if, in fact, we could see that take place.

One does not need to say that this is an area that has never been explored before. As I said, the Province of British Columbia has had it for many years; the Province of Quebec has had it for many more, for decades.

I believe that the numbers and the stats clearly demonstrate that, in the end, we have seen more harmony in terms of labour relations in those provinces. This is a direct result of having anti-scab legislation, or at the very least, an indirect result.

I do not say that lightly, because it has been attempted before. I will go back to my home province of Manitoba. Back in 1988, when I was first elected, there was a big labour issue before the chamber. It was based on what they called final offer selection. This was, in essence, a compromise. The premier, Howard Pawley, had made a commitment years prior to the union movement to bring in anti-scab legislation. Well, he did not do so; instead, he brought in final offer selection as a compromise.

The final offer selection, in essence, said that the employer and employee would give their very best offer. The arbitrator would then have to choose one of the two; they could not mix it up in any way. That legislation had a sunset clause on it. That was the closest Manitoba ever came to having anti-scab legislation; it was that compromise.

I remember the debates quite well, because we would be going until two o'clock in the morning in standing committees. I remember the presentations by, in particular, labour movements and the different types of businesses that were coming before the Manitoba legislature.

It was a very heated discussion that took place. However, people lost sight of the bargaining table and the issue of collective bargaining.

There is not a level playing field when an employer is allowed to bring in replacement workers. That became very apparent in those discussions. At the time, we were the official opposition, and we felt we had to fight to keep final offer selection in place in the province of Manitoba, because we knew there was no way we were going to be able to get anti-scab legislation. If we could not get that, then we would stick with Howard Pawley's compromise of final offer selection. Unfortunately, we still lost that because of a lot of political manipulation.

I suspect that the Hansard of the Manitoba legislature back then would show that I was a very strong advocate, because I believe in, as much as possible, striving for labour harmony and supporting the collective bargaining system. This is why it goes as far back as 1988, and members will find that, with respect to labour issues, I often stand in the chamber, and often on behalf of many of my Liberal caucus colleagues. In fact, today, on behalf of all of my Liberal caucus colleagues, I am talking about how important it is to see the legislation before us pass, because we do not know what is on the horizon. Many, including myself, would like to think that we are going to be on this side for the next 10 years, but Canadians are going to have to make that decision. For now, we have an opportunity to do something very positive for the labour force and for business by getting behind the legislation. It is one of the ways in which we can actually support Canada's middle class.

If we go back to the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg, it was the grouping of the middle class that was feeling stepped on and that felt compelled to get engaged in the strike. Interestingly, what brought the strike to what I would suggest was an improper conclusion was when a trolley car that was being used for replacement workers came across from what used to be the old city hall, downtown on Main Street, where there were protests taking place for some of the union leaders who had actually been arrested. Strikers were there, and the trolley car was brought forward, which incited the workers. This incitement led to the trolley car's being turned over. The windows were smashed, and ultimately it was set on fire. People died as a result, not because of being burned but because of the actions that followed immediately after that.

There is a lot to be learned from history, and the Winnipeg General Strike had a profoundly positive impact on the labour movement in Canada. Many of the social programs we have today can be attributed to a lot of the strong labour personalities, and they came from different parties. It does not have to be made a political issue. Each and every one of us can be an advocate. Supporting the labour movement is supporting Canada's middle class and it is supporting our business community. If we learn from the past, we can recognize the value and importance of the bargaining table and of taking actions that would support the collective bargaining process. All one needs to do is look at the provinces of B.C. and Quebec. I truly believe it would provide, directly and indirectly, more labour harmony for Canada as a whole.

The federal legislation would not apply for a majority. The majority would be found within the provincial jurisdictions. I hope the federal legislation would embolden provincial legislatures. That is why I highlight the Province of Manitoba. I think it is in a good position to be able to advance legislation of this nature, because final offer selection died long ago, 30 years or more ago. Therefore, I am hoping the provinces will look at it and take tangible steps to make it happen. It takes away from bargaining, and anything that takes away from the bargaining table is a bad thing. It prolongs disputes. The costs to our economy are enormous. At the end of the day, having a system in place that encourages labour's bargaining with employers is a positive thing.

There are many mechanisms within the legislation itself that the Minister of Labour made reference to, and I would like to highlight a couple of them. Employers would be banned from hiring replacement workers during a strike or a lockout. That would mean, for example, that no new contractors or members of a bargaining unit could cross the picket line. Employers would be able to use replacement workers only to prevent threats to life, health and safety, or destruction or serious damage to property or the environment. If a union believes its employer is in violation of the ban, it would be able report it to the CIRB for an investigation. There would be a substantial penalty of $100,000 per day in certain situations. There would also be a maintenance of activities agreement, which is how employers and unions would agree on what work will continue during a strike or a lockout. It is a truce in the midst of a dispute.

There are a number of clauses within the legislation to reinforce its strength, so hopefully all members will get behind Bill C-58. I have listened to the New Democrats and members of the Bloc, who have some concerns. Let us get the bill to committee stage and see whether there are some amendments that could be brought forward. The government has demonstrated in the past that it is always open to the good ideas of individuals.

The Conservative leader often likes to talk about how he is there to represent union workers. If he is genuine in his comments, then I would hope the Conservative Party would join the Bloc; the NDP; the Greens, I expect; and the Liberals in voting in favour of the legislation. Unanimously supporting the legislation would send a powerful, positive message to all, in particular the labour movement. That would be my appeal to my colleagues across the way. Hopefully, they will respond to the appeal in a positive fashion and will think of the 1919 general strike and how it could impact some of the thinking on the whole process as we debate the bill.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order that came out of the member for Winnipeg North's speech. In particular, he quoted a few occasions at length—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

That sounds like debate. The hon. member will have an opportunity to ask a question, so I would ask him to get straight to the point of order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a question about quoting from Hansard in the record, and he quoted himself at length a few times. We know that the member is more concerned about the quantity than the quality of his words and—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

That does not sound like a point of order. Members are allowed to quote Hansard as they wish.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been saying that they are standing up for unions by banning replacement workers. If it is such a good idea, why are they not doing the same thing with their own federal public sector union employees?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is about regulating the industry. At the end of the day, I do not have a problem comparing labour negotiations to those of the federal government today. Over the last number of years, compared to Stephen Harper's time, we see there has been a great deal of collective bargaining and agreements signed off on. It is virtually night and day.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of the presence in the House of the member for Sarnia—Lambton to draw a parallel between two bills that have required a lot of effort from several parties over the years in the House.

During this Parliament, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced a bill on protecting pension plans. The Bloc Québécois enthusiastically supported the bill. Our colleague very elegantly and gracefully acknowledged the work that had been done in the past by other members of Parliament, and this paved the way for a bill that was proudly supported by several parties and was adopted unanimously.

Something similar is happening with this bill to prohibit strikebreakers. The Bloc Québécois has introduced 11 bills over the years. The NDP has also introduced some. We in the House have a golden opportunity to once again demonstrate unity and respect for workers' rights, because allowing employers to hire scabs is an affront to the fundamental rights of workers in Quebec and Canada.

The question I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg North is this: Why was the government so set on including a provision in the bill that says the legislation does not come into force until a year and a half after it receives royal assent?

That does not make much sense to me. All it does is prolong an injustice that should have been remedied a long time ago. Rather than being subject to an 18-month delay, the bill should apply retroactively going back several years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit reluctant to get into an area that is fairly detailed. As I suggested, when the legislation goes to committee, I am sure the member would be able to ask some of the specifics. If he feels it is too long a period, then there is always the possibility of moving an amendment. A lot of it has to do with the background work that has been done on it. For example, the member is not necessarily aware of the discussions and debate that would have taken place among labour and management groups that thought it was the best time frame to put it in. I do not know those types of details. The member might even want to consider approaching the minister directly about the issue.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has introduced anti-scab bills eight times in the last 15 years. The last time one was put forward for a vote, in 2016, the Liberals and Conservatives teamed up and voted against the NDP on the bill.

I am hearing from workers about the fact that they are very happy to hear that the Liberals have finally seen the light, and that they are understanding how the use of replacement workers has created tensions in the workplace and decreased the ability for workers to negotiate for fair working conditions. Workers are wondering whether the member can share with them why it took so long for the Liberals to see the light, and whether, moving forward, we will see the Liberals taking on more measures to protect workers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was being somewhat careful to make sure I did not turn this into a partisan issue, but the member has invited me to do so.

Let me remind the member that it was a Liberal government in B.C. that brought it in, a Liberal government in the province of Quebec that brought it in, and a Liberal commitment that was made in the last federal policy platform, on page 22. As for the NDP, I was in the Manitoba legislature when Howard Pawley, the NDP premier at the time, promised to bring in anti-scab legislation. He broke that promise and the NDP, over 20 years, has failed to bring in anti-scab legislation.

Just last week, my daughter, who happens to be a Liberal MLA, encouraged the NDP to bring it forward in a throne speech, which the current provincial government failed to do. However, I am optimistic that the new premier will in fact do what my daughter is suggesting and bring in anti-scab legislation at the provincial level.

By the way, the provincial jurisdiction impacts more workers than the federal legislation would, so I would hope that all provinces would do likewise and follow the national lead, along with B.C. and Quebec, and have anti-scab legislation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I trade barbs back and forth, in good nature, with the member for Winnipeg North all the time. I will point out to him, though, that in his speech he talked about how replacement workers were a cause of the 1919 strike. The Canadian Labour Congress website has no mention of replacement workers. What it does state is that a big cause of the strike was inflation.

I am wondering if the member could tell the House how much the Liberal-induced inflation right now is causing the need for the legislation he is promoting.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if the member were to peruse Hansard to see exactly what I said, I said “in good part” replacement workers were the reason for the 1919 strike, especially the conclusion of it. A number of factors led to it, and in good part, it was about employers and a sense of exploitation at a time when there was inflation.

The member tries to compare it to today. It is important that we put things into proper perspective in the sense that, around the world, Canada's inflation rate is doing quite well in comparison. Having said that, we are moving in the right direction. In June 2022, it was over 8%. Now we are getting closer to 3%. We are moving in the right direction and we will continue to have Canadians' backs.

The other thing I would emphasize, based on the question the member asked, is in regard to Canada's middle class. Canada's middle class has been supported, whether through this legislation or middle-class tax breaks from the very beginning. People in the middle class know that this government has their backs in all ways.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague some questions instead of listening to him talk for another four minutes. I am just keeping our colleague's joke going.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the 18 months it is going to take before the bill comes into force after receiving royal assent. That is not the usual practice. Normally a bill comes into force upon receiving royal assent. Given that we have been waiting years for anti-scab legislation and there are people who are suffering because there is no such measure in the Canada Labour Code, I would like him to explain why we should wait 18 months. I see no justification for more delays.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the sensitivity of the question. I believe that once we get the bill into committee, there will be a more detailed, fulsome answer to that specific question. I suspect it has a lot to do with the making of the legislation and the people who were engaged in consultations. There may be some time-related issues.

I would encourage the member to go to the standing committee and put forward that question, or even approach the minister directly.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, when Labour Day comes every year, I am part of the millions of Canadians who really think about what it means and what the hard-fought labour rights represent. How can this legislation further protect the sacred right to strike in this nation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I believe it is in recognition of the importance of the free collective bargaining system and the importance of the bargaining table.

At the end of the day, when we think of labour rights, ultimately labour harmony is good for all of us. One of the things I would like to emphasize, as this is my last answer, is for us to think of the social impact that labour has had here in Canada from coast to coast to coast, which has been tremendously positive.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

I stand before the House today to discuss Bill C-58, a piece of legislation concerning the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. This bill, brought forth by the Minister of Labour and Seniors, is a clear product of the NDP-Liberal coalition's agenda. While it is important to look at the contents of the bill, it is also very much of equal importance to look at how the NDP-Liberal coalition is hurting workers they claim they are helping.

In this debate, we must be mindful of the delicate balance between protecting workers' rights and maintaining a healthy, competitive business environment. It is our duty to examine how this bill fits into the larger narrative of the current Liberal government's failed policies, which have wide-reaching effects on the Canadian workforce and the overall economic landscape. As representatives of the Canadian people, we have a responsibility to evaluate this legislation not just in isolation but within the context of its potential impact on our nation's prosperity and the well-being of its citizens.

In recent years, we have witnessed an escalating trend in labour disputes across Canada, with a staggering total of 269 major work stoppages. They include both lockouts and strikes in just the past two years. This disturbing rise in labour unrest is a direct consequence of the current Liberal government's policies over the last eight years.

The Prime Minister's inflationary policies have significantly contributed to this turmoil, leaving workers in a dangerous position, struggling just to make ends meet. The harsh reality is that Canadian workers are increasingly finding themselves backed into a corner. The cost of living has skyrocketed, eroding the purchasing power of their wages. Many feel that demanding higher wages is their only remedy to keep pace with the escalating costs.

This sense of desperation is a clear indication of the government's failure in handling labour relations effectively. The policies enacted have not only failed to alleviate the pressures on Canadian workers but have actively made their lives harder, fuelling discontent and unrest in the workforce.

This situation calls for urgent attention and a re-evaluation of the government's approach to the inflationary policies that make life more unaffordable. It is crucial that we address the root causes of these issues rather than merely applying temporary fixes. The government must take responsibility for the current state of labour relations in Canada and work toward sustainable solutions that truly support and uplift the working class.

In continuing to address the current state of affairs under the NDP-Liberal government, it is important to highlight how these policies are intensifying the hardships faced by Canadian workers. A prime example is the carbon tax, which has resulted in a significant increase in costs across the board. This tax, far from being a simple environmental measure, has had a domino effect, affecting everything from transportation to the cost of basic needs. The burden of these increased expenses is disproportionately put on the working class, who find their paycheques stretched thinner every day.

Moreover, the housing crisis under the NDP-Liberal government has reached a critical point. Housing costs have not just risen; they have doubled. The situation is made worse by mortgage payments, which are now 150% higher than they were when Harper was prime minister. This financial strain is pushing Canadian families to the brink, with over 50% living within $200 of insolvency.

The reality is that the Liberals, now hand in hand with the NDP, have long abandoned the workers they claim to represent. Their policies, rather than offering relief, have contributed to the reality where everyday Canadians struggle to afford the basic costs of living. This abandonment is not just a failure of economic policy but a betrayal of the trust that workers place in their government to safeguard their interests and well-being.

The implications of these policies are far-reaching and deeply concerning. They paint a picture of a government disconnected from the realities faced by its citizens, especially the working class.

The recent revelation concerning the Stellantis battery plant is a striking example of the government's mismanagement and lack of transparency. It has come to light that 1,600 foreign replacement workers will be employed at the facility, a project funded by Canadian taxpayers to the tune of $15 billion. Even yesterday, we learned that up to 900 foreign replacement workers will help build the NextStar battery plant in Windsor. The fundamental question is why these jobs, created with Canadian money, are not being offered to Canadian workers.

This situation is unacceptable. It is a glaring injustice that Canadian taxpayers are financing projects that fail to prioritize their employment. The Prime Minister's office has been silent on the details of the massive corporate subsidies granted to electric vehicle battery plants. The recent revelations by the Parliamentary Budget Officer have only intensified concerns, indicating that the actual costs and implications are far more substantial than initially presented by the Prime Minister.

Moreover, Canadian workers and taxpayers deserve full transparency. Is the Prime Minister planning to use taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers at other facilities, such as the Volkswagen and Northvolt plants? This lack of clarity should be especially concerning for my Quebec colleagues, who might see jobs in their region being outsourced to foreign workers, potentially at the Northvolt plant located in the Bloc leader’s own riding.

If the Prime Minister truly cared about Canadian workers, as the bill suggests, he would disclose the contracts signed with Stellantis, Volkswagen and Northvolt. Canadians have a right to know the financial obligations they are under and the specific job provisions guaranteed for Canadian workers. The Prime Minister should have already ensured that Canadian tax dollars would be funding jobs for Canadian workers, not the employment of foreign workers.

Common-sense Conservatives are committed to ensuring that Canadian tax dollars are utilized justly and that the jobs they help create are indeed available for Canadians. The current situation is a stark reminder of the need for responsible governance that would place Canadian interests and workers at the forefront. We will continue to demand transparency and accountability from the government to ensure that Canadian workers are not sidelined in their own country.

Bill C-58 looks at dealing with the worsening labour relations across Canada, but the real issue stems from the NDP-Liberal government, which has made life unaffordable for the average Canadian worker. The reality faced by Canadian workers today is one of escalating costs, reduced purchasing power and missed employment opportunities, despite significant taxpayer investments. The introduction of foreign replacement workers in key taxpayer-funded projects such as the Stellantis battery plant symbolizes the government's disconnect from the needs and rights of Canadian labour.

The Conservative Party stands firmly with Canadian workers. We advocate for transparency, accountability and, above all, ensuring that Canadians are first in line for jobs created with their hard-earned tax dollars. It is time for the government to stop neglecting these vital principles. Canadian workers deserve a government that champions their cause, protects their interests and utilizes taxpayer funds to actually benefit Canadians. That is the commitment of the Conservative Party, and we will relentlessly pursue this goal in the interests of all Canadians.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. A lot of his speech was talking about temporary foreign workers.

Many places across Canada, such as my riding of Sydney—Victoria, rely on temporary foreign workers where there are labour shortages. The Victoria Co-operative brings in many temporary foreign workers to work in the fish plants in the northern Cape Breton area because they cannot get people to travel there.

In Canada, we believe that diversity is strength. I am wondering if the member opposite is a little concerned about the narrative that the Conservatives continue to use that really focuses on foreign workers. Does the member not feel that the narrative is creating unnecessary hate and division between Canadians at a time when we are trying to bring Canadians together?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is quite rich coming from a Liberal member who is saying, “Don't worry, foreign replacement workers are acceptable”, after we just spent $15 billion to build a plant. That is unacceptable. We have the resources here in Canada. We have the people with the skill sets to do this.

Yes, temporary foreign workers are vital to Canadian jobs, but at the same time, this should not be the go-to when we are building a brand new plant that the government is bragging will help Canadians boost and build the economy. It is shameful for them to be bringing in replacement workers to build plants.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for me, this is a really important bill, and one that the NDP really fought hard for. We have been fighting for anti-scab legislation for an extremely long time.

I think about the times that I have stood on picket lines. If one is from a rural and remote community, sometimes it takes a while to get to that picket line, because people live in very isolated places. I remember having a conversation with one gentleman in particular who talked about the fact that, when they were on strike, the company took away their health benefits. He and his spouse had adopted a couple of kids and were planning to adopt a third, they were in the process, but they could not because of the strike. The bill before us would fundamentally give those folks, those workers, more power in the negotiating process. I wonder if the member could speak to why that is important.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that Canadians do not have the right to strike. We are saying that every person needs to have a right to live. One of the problems with the government is that it is not giving that ability to Canadians to make a financial benefit to themselves. With all the policies that are happening right now, taxes continuing to rise and the carbon tax taking away from their income is the bigger problem. With the cost of food and everything else going up, this is why the Liberals are bringing in this type of legislation.

It is not about trying to protect workers. It is about trying to protect Canadians to live and have a quality of life. This is why the bill has some issues with it, which need to be dealt with.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though, with every bill we talk about in this place, it is just a matter of time before Conservative MPs find a way to bring up the carbon tax again.

In light of that, the fact is, for the rebates Canadians receive, and that workers receive, eight out of 10 give more back than Canadians pay, unless they are among the 20% of the wealthiest across the country. Is the member for Yellowhead aware of the rebates they get back? Is he not concerned about the oil and gas companies that are gouging Canadians at the pumps every single day?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I love that they believe these talking points. I am surprised the Green member is not in a Liberal seat because those are their straight talking points, and they are not true.

Canadians are paying a lot more for their groceries, fuel and everything else. They are far from getting back more than they contribute. The reason that statistic is out there is that they do not include all the costs. They take a lot away, such as fuel, transportation and public transportation. They are not included in the final details, and that is why they can claim Canadians are getting more back, which is not true. That is a false statement from the government.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-58, was unnecessary. As someone who values the work of labour unions, a person who appreciates the historic impact they have had on improving the rights and working conditions of Canadian workers, I feel it is sad that we have to consider whether replacement workers should be allowed in federally regulated workplaces.

The use of replacement workers comes about when either a unionized workforce has gone on strike or an employer has locked out its workers. In either case, there are no real winners, so what would bring workers or employers to such a position? Why would they feel it necessary to take such drastic measures if nobody wins in such a situation? The answer is simple. If it seems that Canada has seen more labour strife than at any other time in recent history, the reason is simple. The policies of the Liberal government have made it difficult for Canadian workers to make ends meet.

Workers expect government to look out for their best interests. We have a government that apparently does not understand what is good for people. We see record inflation, food prices spiralling out of control and the dream of home ownership dying for millions of Canadians. Those who are lucky enough to find a place to rent have discovered that rents have also skyrocketed. What is the Liberals' response to these economic problems? Its response includes inflationary deficits and higher taxes, government spending that seems out of control, the highest national debt in the history of Canada and no ideas of how to fix the mess they have created. When the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything for everyone, housing costs have doubled, mortgage costs are 150% higher than they were before the Liberal government took office and half of Canadians say that they are $200 or less from going broke, it is no wonder workers feel abandoned by the government.

The Conservative Party supports the rights of workers to organize democratically, bargain collectively and peacefully withdraw and withhold their services from an employer. We also believe the government should work with unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to develop dispute settlement mechanisms and encourage their use to avoid or minimize disruption to services for Canadians. Bill C-58 will apply to about one million workers in federally regulated industries, many of which are sectors that are critical to national life. For this reason alone, it is important to study this legislation at committee to hear from witnesses, both those who are in favour and those who are against the legislation, to allow members to better understand the implications of this bill.

I am sure the Liberals will tell me that such a study is not really necessary, that they know what they are doing and that this legislation should be passed with a minimum of scrutiny. After all, the Liberals tell us they know what is best for the country, but anyone who questions their dogma, they view as a heretic. In the church that is the Liberal Party, I would be a heretic. I have seen too many Liberal ministers telling Canadians that they know what is best for them when they obviously do not. The government would like us to believe that the Liberals are infallible, but all too often the truth is that they do not have a clue what they are doing. That may be true also with this bill.

I would think that unions would view Bill C-58 as correcting a tilted playing field that has been in favour of employers. They expect that, once this act is passed, the strikes and lockouts will be shorter. In the same way, I would think employers would see Bill C-58 as favouring unions, with the potential of prolonged strikes and lockouts. These are conflicting viewpoints, and whichever one we might adopt may depend on our view of the current balance of power between unions and employers.

Our job in the House is to find a way to craft legislation that is fair to both workers and employers, which is another reason to ensure that we consider the bill carefully so we do not have to return to the subject to fix mistakes made by a rushed process. When the minister spoke in the House just a couple of days ago, he said that consideration of the bill would not be rushed and that it is one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen. I am glad he sees the need for a long and hard examination of the proposed legislation. We all want more deals to be made at the bargaining table. Strikes and lockouts are harmful to workers, employers and the Canadian economy as a whole. The Liberals seem to think that the bill would result in fewer labour disruptions. It will be interesting to hear what witnesses say when Bill C-58 is examined at committee.

One of the areas that may be contentious is allowing employers to hire replacement workers as long as they deal solely with the situation that presents or could reasonably be expected to present an imminent or serious threat. Those threats could be to the life, health or safety of any person; destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises. Allowing replacement workers in such situations seems reasonable. The problem I foresee is one of determining exactly what the situations are when such hiring would be allowed. I would expect unions would quite naturally attempt to limit the use of replacement workers, while employers would try to stretch the definition as much as possible, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe employers and unions alike would be reasonable in all situations and there would be a clear understanding of what represents a safety threat, property damage or environmental damage.

More likely, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would find itself much busier if this legislation is passed, as it tries to work out the details of the legislation in practice as opposed to in theory. No one, not workers, not employers and not the public, likes labour disruptions. In an ideal world, they would not happen. Of course, in an ideal world, workers would not have to worry about having to make a choice between paying the rent and paying for groceries. In an ideal world, Canadians would not be wondering why their government was offering tax exemptions on one form of home heating fuel and not on the others that contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions. In an ideal world, food bank use would be decreasing instead of increasing, and Canadians would not have to worry whether they can afford the ever-increasing cost of food.

However, under the current government, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where the Liberal carbon tax keeps going up, increasing the cost of everything. Canadian workers and employers alike are feeling squeezed by a government that has shown by its fiscal policies that it does not care about either of them. Unions and businesses may have differing views about Bill C-58, but they do have one thing in common: They all know that it is time for the Liberal government to go.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started his speech by saying that a bill to ban replacement workers was unnecessary. That really speaks to the Conservatives' view on labour rights and their track record in the past under the Harper government. The bill before us is a bill that would allow workers to stand up and be able to receive powerful paycheques.

Conservatives say they stand up for workers, but when it comes time to vote, why are they always on the other side of workers?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say it was unnecessary; I said I wish it were unnecessary. That is what I said, and I hope the Liberal side will listen better so we can have better conversations.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one possible unintended consequence of the legislation that I have not heard brought up yet is that it could possibly incentivize employers to make increased investment in automation, artificial intelligence and other things to replace workers. Yes, the legislation proposes to ban replacement workers in certain circumstances, but if it would be incentivizing employers to invest in technology that would end jobs, how would it be a net benefit to workers in the end?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. That is why the bill needs to be studied well and studied at committee so we can understand and examine it. Giving the bill proper scrutiny would make sure that it is perfect.

However, we know that the government is always hiding things under its belt. There is something that could be dangerous enough for the government to rush the bill through without allowing the proper consultation and allowing witnesses to go through it so we would know exactly what the bill is all about.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, I got the impression that he was saying that his party would agree to anti-scab legislation as long as there are enough exceptions so that this law, if applied, would not restrict employers too much. He says there should be exceptions so that, as soon as a strike causes the slightest inconvenience, the employer can use replacement workers. Generally speaking, an employer does not give a hoot about the consequences for employees when locking them out.

I want to know from the outset whether my colleague agrees that, when there is a strike, it is somewhat normal for the employer to suffer at least some consequences.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that under the Chrétien government, there was something called partnership between an employee and employer. An employer's not caring about an employee would go against productivity and having a good result for the business. I hope that such a situation does not ever exist in Canada, but the member is a legislator. She is an MP and I am an MP. Every MP of the House would want to have the most perfect piece of legislation coming through. That is not something we take lightly, especially with a bill that is as important and critical as this one.

In my speech, I advocated having enough time to study the bill carefully to make sure it would do the job. That is our intention and that is why we are here.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little curious and would like to get more information from the member. Specifically, while he was speaking, I was reflecting about the fact that the Conservative leader stands frequently and says that he is there for workers. Now, the member is saying that he wants to see deals happening at the bargaining table. At the same time, I am not hearing a clear answer around what his stance is on the bill. We know that workers need to have the capacity to be at the bargaining table when they are forced to do so, to fight for fair and respectful working conditions. Replacement workers take away that capacity for workers to fight for what is right, for them to have a dignified and respectful working environment.

Can the member please clarify? Will he and his Conservative colleagues be voting in favour of the bill, or will they do what they have always done and not be there for workers?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the notion underlying the member's question, which is that we are against workers. That is absolutely unacceptable. Besides that, we are asking for better examination and for the bill to be carefully done.

By the way, we have not yet heard from the unions or the workers. We have heard only from the NDP. If it thinks it is the only party to represent unions and workers in this place, then we are in bad shape here.

The answer is that we need the bill to be studied properly and carefully. That is what we are asking for.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-58, a very important piece of legislation. It was a commitment made by both the Liberals and the NDP in the last election, something we have been able to work together on in order to bring forward legislation to the House so we could provide a better environment for workers to be able to negotiate new contracts or re-negotiate existing contracts with employers. That is what the bill seeks to do.

We know that when there are individuals who want to go on strike, they are usually doing it for a fairly important reason. They are sometimes doing it because their wages are not reflecting the reality of what they believe they should be paid. They are doing it because they are worried about the conditions in which they are working. They are doing it because they are worried about job security and what their employers are providing for them.

We know that when they do make the decision to go on strike, which does and, quite frankly, should happen from time to time in order to properly demonstrate the need and the requirement to change working conditions, it has to be taken very seriously.

The employer's having the opportunity to bring in scab labour, replacement workers who are there while negotiating, significantly takes away from the employer's ability to negotiate in good faith. Think about that for a second. What if someone were on the management side of a firm and had to negotiate, and the only thing being held against them was the ability of people to strike? What if, at the same time, they had the opportunity to bring people in to replace the workers while management was in the process of negotiating with the striking employees? Management would not face the same realities that those who are on strike would.

When a union decides to go on strike, extreme hardships can be felt by the employees. They are not paid anymore. Sometimes they are given small stipends from their union, but it is nowhere near what they would be making normally. They are taking on hardships in order to stand up for their rights. If an employer has the opportunity to negotiate while having replacement or scab labour in place, they are going to be negotiating from a much more comfortable position in terms of their ability to continue to function. While employees have the hardships imposed upon them through either a strike or a lockout, in the same vein, we have to make sure that the negotiating position is balanced. That is done by ensuring that employers have to feel the same kind of pain, for lack of a better expression. They have to be faced with the same reality that if they do not get to a deal quickly, they cannot continue to function in their business in the manufacturing sector or whatever it might be. As a result, they have to be motivated.

We know that the best deals are those that are made at the bargaining table. We know that when we can encourage, through various different pieces of legislation, both sides to sit down and work out a deal, it will produce the best result for everybody. It can be a messy process, and we have seen that time and time again through the history of this country, in terms of organized labour. It can be messy when people are striking. Just yesterday, I was driving through Quebec and saw a number of people protesting in a strike that was ongoing there.

This is part of the process. It is about bringing to the attention of the employer that there is a significant need for the employee that is not being addressed by the employer. That is why the best deals are those that are made at the table by bringing the two parties together to be able to do that. That is why the legislation before us would specifically prohibit employers from using the following workers from doing the work of striking or locked out employees: first, new hires, such as employees and managers hired after notice to bargain collectively is given; and, second, contractors, regardless of when they were hired.

The bill also seeks to prohibit employers from using the services of employees in a bargaining unit when that bargaining unit is in a full strike or lockout where all employees in the unit are expected to stop working. I think this is really important, because a union's strength is in its unity and membership. Unions operate in a democratic fashion. They elect their leadership, which is there to represent them; it is critically important to ensure that some who might not have voted in favour are still subject to the leadership that they have democratically elected. I can see how it might be tempting otherwise for individuals to do this, but again, at the end of the day, we know that the best deals are those that are made at the table and not by the influences that come from using outside forms of labour in the meantime. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. I will not get into detail, but they relate primarily to health and safety and environmental impacts on the property of the employer.

However, this bill also seeks to ensure that, if unions believe that an employer is violating a ban, they may complain to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This is an independent administrative tribunal whose job is to resolve workplace disputes and certain appeals that arise under the Criminal Code, among other acts. The board can investigate, and if it agrees with the complaint, order the employer to stop the violation. It is also really important that a hefty fine comes along with this to further discourage the employer from moving toward this kind of action. It sets out a maximum fine of $100,000 per day if the employer is prosecuted and convicted of violating the prohibition. Members can see that the intent of the bill is really to put as many measures in place to prevent these activities of employing scab or replacement workers for the purposes of, once again, ensuring that people get to the bargaining table and having meaningful discussions there.

One other thing I want to address, and perhaps I pre-empt a question from my NDP colleagues, is that NDP members have been steadfast in their support for the bill. However, they have said that they forced the government to do this; I do not quite look at it like that. We did run on this. It is on page 22 of our last election platform, but it may have been slightly different. We may have worked on this in a way with the NDP to make the bill even stronger, which is great. That is what this entire process is about. Our Westminster parliamentary system is based on the idea that, if one party does not form a majority, we work with other political parties to develop strategies and policies that we can bring forward on behalf of the Canadian people, in our case anyhow. That is what we are seeing.

Therefore, I think that the NDP should rightfully take credit for some of this, as they have done good work on it. I also think that the government has done extremely good work on it, and the Liberal Party has been committed to it as well. I hear that call from the NDP, but I respectfully disagree that it was forced. Nobody forced anybody to do anything. This was one of the terms of that agreement that we came to in order to work together in a productive manner.

To that end, I am very glad that there is another political party in this room made up of adults, when it comes to doing meaningful things for the people we represent. I would say two, one of which is the Bloc. It is not always just about saying no, because the objective is to be an obstructionist at any cost. The objective is genuine in this agreement. I quite often see a genuine objective from the Bloc as well to advance better policy, ideas and legislation for the people we individually represent.

However, I am very concerned, once again, about the lack of clarity on this issue from my colleagues on the other side of the House, the Conservatives. They have given a couple of speeches on this. They were asked a direct question just moments ago by my NDP colleague about whether they will support the bill. They skate around it, they do not answer, they give vague statements, they are not concrete on it and they will not even say that they will support the bill to get to committee, which is just an initial step.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

They are heckling me now.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will not even say that they will support it just to get it to committee where they want to do this work. We heard the member for Edmonton Manning say that just moments ago. They want to have a thorough discussion and thorough examination; a lot of that happens at committee.

Will they support getting it to committee? I raise this because it is an important observation. We have seen this happen a couple times now with the Conservatives, especially since September, where they are very non-committal on an issue. When they do get up and speak about it, like the bill we were debating yesterday, they do not even mention the issue at hand. Thankfully, they are at least talking about workers in this context. What do they do next? They vote against it.

Where did we see that recently? With the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The Conservatives never committed, in all the speeches that they gave in this House, to what their position was. Then one by one, they stood up and voted against Ukraine and showed exactly who they were. They are not going to get away with that. The Canadian people are going to know how they voted and the Canadian people do know.

In the news cycle yesterday, there was a lot of talk about the Leader of the Opposition, his right-wing politics and where he is going, where he is taking this party, by even some of the most Conservative pundits out there who write opinion pieces on the position of the Conservative Party. There is this fake notion of a price on pollution, when it clearly states in the agreement that no particular country's environmental policies can impact another country. They look for these red herrings to be able to do this.

We did not let them get away with that. If the Conservatives' plan again this time is to just skate around the issue of workers, stand up and say that they support workers, that they are there with workers until the end and that they will always support workers, but then turn around and vote for it when it is time to vote, we are going to report that back to Canadians. I am sure my colleagues in the NDP are going to help us do that.

Canadians deserve to know where the Conservatives stand. When they get up in this House and talk about an issue, they need to be able to say they support it or they do not support it. They cannot any longer get away with the rhetoric we hear from across the way and the approach they have been taking.

I am very happy to tell members that I will be supporting this. I want to see this go to committee. I know there have already been a couple issues brought up, I think, in good faith, that can be discussed at committee. The committee can look into the issue to make even better legislation. The idea that we are going to be able to just stand up and talk about how amazing Conservatives have been for workers when the record does not come anywhere near to reflecting that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I do not know why they would clap for that.

Mr. Speaker, their record is not anywhere near reflective of that. The reality is that the vast majority of Canadians know that Conservatives do not support workers. They support big corporations and that has always been their MO. They come from the position of trickle-down economics from the Ronald Reagan era. As long as they make things better for the most wealthy, as long as they make things better for the corporations and as long as they strip more taxes from corporations, they swear it is going to trickle down to the workers. Workers are going to be impacted by that and they will be so much better off as a result.

We know that Reagan economics failed. We know that it has only, over the last several decades, contributed to a wider gap between the haves and the have-nots. That is why we need meaningful legislation, like we have before us today, that will force the employer to come to the bargaining table under the same conditions as the employee, which is the condition of fighting for their job, for job security, for fair wages and for benefits from their employer. Just like we expect an employee to do that, we need to expect the employer is going to come with the same restrictions and the same hardships associated to them if they do not negotiate in good faith.

I am glad to see this legislation has come forward. I am really happy we are able to work with our colleagues in the NDP to make this a reality. I am going to cut my comments off there because I think that will give more time to one of my NDP colleagues later down the road.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first let us clarify the record on the Liberals' record with Ukraine. The Liberals sent a turbine to Russia to help Putin fund his war machine. They invited a Nazi to the House of Commons when the President of Ukraine was here. They voted against our motion to give Ukraine the weapons it was asking for, and we just found out today that the Liberals are allowing Canada to sell land-mine detonators to Russia.

With respect to the subject of replacement workers, in 2016, legislation of a similar nature was brought and the Liberals voted against it. Why is there a flip-flop? Is it because the Liberals see that they are plummeting in the polls with the union workers, or is it to try to bolster a shaky relationship with their NDP coalition partners?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is it because it was on page 22 of our election platform?

The member brought up Ukraine. I am so glad that she did. She took the bait very well. The member wants to talk about Ukraine. The reality is that she is trying to somehow justify Conservative support for Ukraine. I will go back and check her Twitter feed to see if she has said anything about Zelenskyy being here in September because I know her boss did not. He did not once mention his presence here. As a matter of fact, the member for Calgary Nose Hill had to go back to quote a tweet on his visit from 2022 as a way to say, “Thanks for coming to visit us in Parliament.”

The reality is that the member is critical of our position on Ukraine. President Zelenskyy asked her to vote for the free trade agreement. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked her to vote for the free trade agreement. Two million Canadians are depending on that member and the Conservatives to stand up for them and for the democratic principles that we promote throughout the world and she failed Ukraine. She turned her back on Ukraine. That is a decision she made earlier this week and something she has to live with.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is truly very much in favour of the bill. The House will recall that the Bloc Québécois has introduced 11 such bills, with the first attempt dating back to 1990. It was the dean of the House who introduced that first bill.

This morning, my colleague from Saint-Jean asked the parliamentary secretary a question. She wanted to know why there will be an 18‑month waiting period before the bill comes into force once it receives royal assent. The parliamentary secretary told her that we could ask that question in committee.

However, why this change when usually a bill comes into force as soon as there is royal assent? Since this is a Liberal bill, I wonder if my colleague can give me the reason for this delay.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of the fact that it was the dean of the House, a sitting member of the Bloc Québécois, who first introduced this legislation decades ago, but I am not surprised. Once again we are seeing how Quebec has shown leadership with respect to issues like this. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation in place for decades now. Quebec continually does this, to its benefit and to its credit. When it comes to environmental legislation, or getting an equitable workplace or getting more women into the workplace, Quebec once again leads the path. Therefore, I am not surprised to hear once again that this is an initiative for which Quebec has been fighting for a long time. We can learn a lot from the lessons that we have seen from Quebec with respect to issues like this.

With respect to the member's question about the timing, I am not exactly sure why 18 months was a requirement, but I know if we get this to committee we can have the questions asked there and perhaps, if necessary, amend it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking so much about the Liberal platform commitment on anti-scab legislation. What is important to note, but I did not hear the member say, is that the commitment was to legislate against scabs in the case of a lockout. Therefore, it was not actually about protecting the right to strike, which is fundamental to workers' being able to bring home more powerful paycheques; it was about slapping employers on the wrist if they lock workers out.

However, we know that if we really want to take anti-scab legislation seriously and we want to defend the right to collective bargaining, workers themselves should be able to go out on strike to fight for better wages and enjoy that protection. Therefore, I am very glad that the NDP was able to bring that and push the government to do that.

I also heard the member talk about trickle-down economics. I agree with his analysis. Does that mean he would be willing to raise the corporate tax rate by a percentage point to triple the government's investment in affordable housing initiatives and make them happen now instead of two years from now?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I said that our proposal may have been slightly different from that of the NDP. The result is better and I will be the first to say that. Yes, we ran on something slightly different, but the NDP said this was a better way to do it and we came to an agreement that is going to be for the betterment of all Canadians. That is the difference between parties that can work together and being confronted with an opposition whose purpose is to be completely obstructionary in its approach.

To his question about raising taxes, the member has raised this before. What I am very concerned about, which I can certainly see eye to eye on with the NDP because I know the NDP has raised it, is corporations, the grocery giants in particular. We need to be doing more to control the greedflation that exists. I do not disagree, personally, that it exists. Is it as easy as raising taxes by x amount on every single corporation in the country? I think he would be the first to admit that a lot of small businesses are corporations in this country as well, so maybe that is not the right way to do it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, when we came to this place in 2015, the hon. member probably knew about the horrific track record of the Conservative Party with the legislation it passed under the Harper government. I was wondering if he could enlighten this House on what we saw when the Conservatives were last in power.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding that has a lot of public sector employees and a lot of people who are impacted directly or indirectly by the public sector. There were so many public sector employees back in 2014-15 in my riding who took extreme issue with what the Conservatives had done. They had even lost the support of corrections guards. That is where we were. I was meeting with corrections employees and their unions to discuss what Stephen Harper had done to them.

The reality is that no person, in my opinion, with a memory of the Harper years and how he treated organized labour could stand and honestly say that Stephen Harper was on the side of organized labour. It just did not exist.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of humorous when I hear the hon. member talk about workers, especially since he mentioned two million Canadians. He is right: Two million Canadians are going to the food bank in one single month.

The member of the Liberal Party claims that he stands up for workers. However, recently we learned that the government plans to staff the Stellantis battery plant with 1,600 taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers rather than Canadian workers. Can the member tell me why Canadian taxpayers are spending $15 billion to create jobs that are not even going to Canadians?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I referenced two million people, I was talking about the two million Ukrainians living in the country who feel as though the Conservative Party turned its back on them. That is what I was talking about when I referred to two million people.

To the member's question, does she know why we have a temporary foreign worker program with South Korea? It is because Stephen Harper brought it in in this country back in 2014. It was Stephen Harper who enabled the legislation to make that happen.

Notwithstanding that, her data and information are incorrect. She is citing them as though they are fact and they are not. As we heard the minister talk about today, this is contributing to misinformation. He quoted various individuals who were saying it.

The reality is that 2,300 Canadian jobs will be made to build the plant and then 2,500 good-paying jobs will be for running the plant. With a foreign company coming to build a new plant in Canada, will there need to be some foreign expertise to show Canadians how to build it? That might be the reality. We might see some foreign workers as a result of that, but they are not permanent—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons like this, but he has far exceeded his speaking time.

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House to represent the amazing folks of Essex. I give all my thanks to God for giving me the opportunity.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I lost my momma. If the House would allow it, I would like to share a few words before I dive into Bill C-58.

Mom would text me during question period to say, “Christopher, you are not wearing a tie today, so you must not be speaking.” Mom would also text me to say, “Christopher, stop chewing gum”, “Smile”, or “Christopher, wake up.”

The little things in life get us through, and the real little things in life were mom's chocolate chip cookies. Mom was known on the Hill for her chocolate chip cookies. However, if a member did something bad, I would get a text saying that the member would not be getting a chocolate chip cookie that day.

She was a servant. She served beyond belief. She is the great reason I am where I am, and why I am who I am.

Although those texts have come to a very abrupt end, after she spent only 13 days in hospital battling cancer, her legacy lives on. If my dad and my brothers Jeff and Kim are watching, I want them to know that Helen, our momma, is in the House of Commons with us all here today. As I promised momma at her bedside, I will make her proud and live to serve. I love her. I thank the House for indulging me.

Bill C-58 has two main elements. First, it would ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, such as banks, airports and telecommunications, but not in the federal public service. It would replace an existing, albeit much more limited, prohibition on the use of replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code.

Second, Bill C-58 would amend the maintenance of activities process to encourage not only quicker agreement between employers and trade unions on what activities should be maintained in the case of a strike or a lockout, but also faster decision-making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board in this connection. The provisions of Bill C-58 would only apply to federally regulated workers. If enacted, the provisions of Bill C-58 would enter into force 18 months after royal assent has been received.

It brings forward a lot of questions and a lot of discussion. I would start by saying that I am very proud to be the shadow minister, the critic, for labour. I have travelled across this country, literally from coast to coast to coast, speaking with both unionized and non-unionized workers in places such as Halifax; St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Vancouver, at the Port of Vancouver; and Montreal.

I have been across this country, meeting with both unionized and non-unionized workforces, their management teams, and the folks with their boots on the ground. What I hear all the time is them saying, “Just let me go to work. I want to go to work. I don't really want to be on strike. What I really want to do is have a good-paying job so I can ultimately feed my family, put diapers on my babies, fill their little mouths with pablum and afford to buy my wife some flowers. I can't do that when I'm on strike.”

At the end of the day, we have seen an unprecedented amount of strikes across this country over the last number of years. Every time I turn around, we are dealing with another strike. Why is that? One has to really wonder if it is the cost of living. Is it the cost of food, which our workers cannot afford? Is it the high interest rates? Is it the carbon tax on fuel and food? Is that the reason why? It always goes back to the same question: Why are we seeing an unprecedented amount of strikes? We have to believe that it is due to inflation. It is due to the cost of living, as well as uncertainty, no doubt.

I will speak quickly to the topic of the Stellantis battery plant in Windsor. One good thing about Air Canada is that it is almost always delayed, which allows me more time to speak to my constituents back home when I am at the airport.

Last night, I spoke to someone at IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who said what the problem is. We have an amazing workforce here in Canada of electrical workers. They are bringing them in from Manitoba and Alberta. They are there in Windsor. They are literally in Windsor to start to work. However, they are very concerned about all of the folks potentially being brought in from South Korea to do all work. In the past, those workers did all the work at tier 2 and tier 3. They have done all that work. He said he understood that 10, 20 or 30 people may need to be brought in to program the computers, but the rest of it they already know how to do.

Then I spoke to the carpenter's union, and they said the same thing. They have the whole workforce there. Why are folks being brought in from other places to do the work that they, quite frankly, are trained to do?

The part of this bill that is somewhat confusing to me is that it is only for federally regulated workers. It does not apply to federally regulated public sector workers. If the government is going to tell businesses that there will be no replacement workers, why would the government not do it for itself? It makes one wonder.

We have had amazing, amazing yields in southwestern Ontario this year from our farmers. Some of the highest bumper crops that we have see in a long time. About 90% to 92% of our grain is exported. If we cannot get the grain onto the ships and overseas, we have a major issue, and we have a major issue right now.

There was just an issue on the Great Lakes, which, by the way, got solved. It is like what was reported yesterday in the news about No Frills. The issue with workers at No Frills was solved yesterday, just like at the Port of Montreal and the Port of Vancouver. How were they solved? They were solved at the table through democracy. There is always a solution when we speak. There is always a solution when people come to the table to have good, fair, strong, respectful dialogue. That is how things get solved.

Because I sit on the transport committee, am a bona fide farmer and was a businessman, my concern is that this potential legislation could drive fewer jobs for the country. It is a matter of fact that this could drive potential Canadian business investment away from Canada, which would ultimately mean fewer jobs.

Ironically, at 9 a.m. tomorrow, I head to the Senate to do my darnedest to get Bill C-241, my private member's bill, through committee. Bill C-241 is a bill that would allow the writeoff of travel expenses for both unionized and non-unionized skilled trades workers. I do not know of anyone in the House who would disagree with me when I say that Canada is absolutely in a major housing crisis, and Bill C-241 would allow the mobility of our skilled trades, both unionized and non-unionized workers, to travel across the country.

I look at Stellantis and the entire project, the upwards of $50 billion for the three battery plants, and I know one thing for sure: We need skilled trade workers at those sites. However, I also know that we need to build homes from coast to coast to coast. Hopefully, tomorrow the Senate will give us the green light, so to speak, and Bill C-241 will get through the Senate to support our skilled trade workers.

For clarity, for anybody watching at home, and I am sure a lot are watching me, this is only for federally regulated workers. This does not dive into the provinces and their regulations.

This is going to sound goofy, but during the Port of Vancouver strike, a message was left at my office, and I called the gentleman back. He said he owns a coffee shop, but he cannot get any cups for the coffee, so he will have to shut his doors because he ordered the cups from overseas. It sounds small and insignificant, but that is one more business that shut its doors, is not paying taxes, that is not employing people or laying them off. It is one more business that Canada is, quite frankly, bleeding.

There is nothing more important than our labour force. My father always said it best. Someone can have the greatest widget in the world, but they cannot build it and they cannot sell it without people. There is not a business I know of that is not about the people, and they only ever will be.

The answer is very simple: Get to the table, get the folks at the table and have a conversation. Deliberations have worked in the past. That is where the answer lies.

In closing, I will just finish with the following. I come from the business world but I also was boots on the ground. In my role as shadow minister for labour, I met some pretty extraordinary folks. I think about the folks at the ILWU out in Vancouver, who treated me with so much respect when I visited them two or three times. I think about the folks out in Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. I think about the folks in my own backyard in Essex. Again, it is resounding that it is only about the people.

There is only one way that we are going to rebuild Canada, that Canada is going to be built, that we are going to have enough homes, that we are going to have the manufacturing and we are going to be on the front line in leading-edge technology, and that is with people. However, they need to be Canadian people. They cannot be folks from overseas who are taking away the jobs of Canadians.

I want to thank the Speaker for allowing me to celebrate my mother and allowing me to have a bit of freedom in my speech today. I am so darn passionate and compassionate when it comes to our labour force and it means the world to me.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

All of us give you our best and our condolences on the loss of your mom. Many of us probably have the same stories about our moms sending us a little note to say to straighten our tie, look a little more lively or that we are looking tired. “Why do you look so tired?” is one I get a lot from my mother. I'm sure your mom did the same thing.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we do extend our most sincere condolences to the member and his family.

It is interesting trying to draw Conservatives out on how they are going to vote. Here we have labour and others who want to see this legislation pass to committee. I have listened closely to the member opposite, and I cannot tell exactly what the Conservative Party is going to do on this. This is Bill C-58.

Just last week, we had debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The Ukrainian heritage community was very excited about that legislation and wanted the House to pass that legislation. Like today, we were left wondering why it was that the Conservative Party did not seem to support Ukraine.

Can the member give a clear indication as to why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

[An hon. member]

Relevance.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a relevance issue that we are looking up, but I will let the hon. member make his comment.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was one of the examples where somebody would not get a chocolate chip cookie from mom. I am just teasing.

I guess I will answer the question, and the question is really an easy one to answer. If the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are so friendly with labour, why did only one Liberal in the entire caucus vote for Bill C-241? That is a really easy question, so I will answer a question with a question. Why do they not support skilled trades?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my deepest condolences to the member and his family. It was very moving when he shared the story about the passing of his mother. My own mother passed away one year and 22 days ago, in November last year. There is not a day I do not think of her. I know it will be the same for him. I wish him all the best in honouring her memory and in working through the grief that comes from her passing.

I want to come back to Bill C-58 because the member spoke very movingly about his mother, as well as other issues, like housing and other bills, but did not actually speak to Bill C-58. The NDP has pushed so hard for this and forced the government to table the bill because of the use of replacement workers in the Windsor area, for example, and Essex County. I know he is familiar with this. Right across the country, Rogers has locked out workers for Shaw cable. Dozens of steelworkers are on the picket line because of the Rogers' lockout, which is using replacement workers in the federal sphere of jurisdiction. It is simply untenable.

As has been pointed out, Bill C-58 would seek to bring a more rapid close to labour disputes because it would mean that CEOs of major corporations would not be able to run roughshod over the rights of their workers, but would have to negotiate in good faith.

What remains a question for me is whether Conservatives will stand with working Canadians and vote for Bill C-58. Could the member tell me if they will vote in favour of the bill?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member so much and really appreciate his compassionate and very thoughtful comments about momma.

At the end of the day we have to ask why the federally regulated public service is not part of this legislation. Why is it that the government, which with all due respect is supported by the NDP, does not have its own employees as part of this legislation? We really have to question whether it is trying to hide something or whether there is something that we do not know. Perhaps if it would open the book and tell us the rest of the story, then we would know exactly where we stand.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, for a really long period of time, the screen actors guild's labour dispute with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers impacted the Canadian film industry in a major way. One of the major sticking points in negotiations was the use of artificial intelligence to act as replacement workers for many people in that situation.

Could the member comment on how the federal Liberal government's inability to articulate a strategic vision for artificial intelligence writ large in Canada, particularly with respect to the impact on labour in the future, could make this legislation moot?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every time we turn around it almost looks like the legislation that comes from the Prime Minister and the Liberals is made from band-aids pieced together.

I think there is a much larger solution available to us, which is that all parties get together to come up with a solution. I would suggest that, whether it is with respect to AI, mines to the north or the busiest international border crossing in Canada, each and every one of those is equally vital to what the member has spoken about. We have a really long way to go and a lot of work to do.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I do not think we have talked about Bill C‑58 in the past 15 minutes. Bill C‑58 is an anti-scab bill.

Scabs have not been used back home in Quebec since 1977. I am very pleased to see that there is equity between Quebec workers with a Quebec employer and Quebec workers with a Canadian employer.

The bill is very sound. I would like my colleague to explain why the Conservatives object to it.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said I was against anything in my speech. I did not say I was for, I did not say I was against, so that is an interesting comment.

I realize that Quebec actually has its own legislation. That is great but I have to look outside of just Quebec. I have to look at this whole country.

Conservatives will continue to look at this entire country, to move our commerce forward, to ensure that there are good-paying jobs, that there are diapers on the babies, that there is pablum in their mouths, that people can afford their rent and their mortgages, and, maybe, just maybe, that there is a little bit of money left over to put presents under the Christmas tree this year.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

I am proud to speak to and defend Bill C-58, which proposes amendments to both the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. With good reason, the labour movement has consistently criticized the use of replacement workers, deeming it destructive and unfair. Bill C-58 is about restoring that long-overdue fairness and about levelling the playing field.

Relying on replacement workers not only diverts attention from the bargaining table but also prolongs disputes, ultimately poisoning the employer-worker relationship for generations. The crucial question that arises is why Canada should now consider banning the use of replacement workers. Practices' merely being customary does not automatically render them justifiable. Should a worker's right to engage in meaningful labour strikes be compromised by the looming threat of replacement? Is a bargaining table where negotiating power is significantly curtailed truly fair? Can the reliance on replacement workers be deemed appropriate in 21st-century labour relations? The answers to these questions are no, no and no.

My parents fled a right-wing fascist dictatorship to come to Canada to work hard and to contribute to our democracy. In dictatorship Portugal, organized labour and unions were banned because the dictator did not want workers to be treated fairly, to have the right to assemble or to have bargaining rights, and he definitely did not want workers to be able to strike.

I stood on picket lines as an eight-year-old, alongside union members, my parents. My father, a proud member of United Steelworkers at John Inglis and Company, a highly profitable company, contributed to the production of industrial machinery here in Canada. The USW union and the Teamsters were two unions my dad belonged to, and my mother, Maria Fonseca, was a card-carrying member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE. I can attest to the pivotal role these unions played in enhancing the life of our family and the lives of thousands of union employees, and benefiting all workers.

Recalling a distressing moment from my childhood, I vividly remember when my father, Joachim, “Jack”, Fonseca, informed my mother that his union brothers and sisters would be commencing a strike the next day, a chilly February day. His fight was centred around securing better wages, improving benefits, gaining advancements for health and safety conditions and safeguarding his pension. The ensuing strike lasted nearly two months, with replacement workers being a significant factor in its prolonged duration. The company opted to deploy non-unionized management personnel on the production line and brought in replacement workers, commonly referred to as “scabs”. Additionally, it exploited vulnerable workers, employees who were struggling, by encouraging them to cross the picket line. This strategic move not only hindered the progress of negotiations but also poisoned relations between employees and employer and led to the deterioration of friendships among co-workers.

Extended disputes of this nature tend to bring out the worst, placing workers in untenable positions where they must choose between asserting their rights and providing for their family. Recognizing the detrimental impact of such situations, various jurisdictions have enacted legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers. Quebec implemented such legislation in 1977 to curb the violent confrontations arising from strikes and picket lines in the province. Similarly, in 1993, the Government of British Columbia passed comparable legislation in response to the escalating tensions between employers and the labour movement. The outcomes in Quebec and B.C. following the passage of such legislation were notable. The frequency of strikes decreased, providing for more predictability and stability.

We consistently emphasize the importance of focusing on being at the bargaining table. Conversely, on the other side of the aisle, Conservatives always seem to have jumped up and introduced back-to-work legislation, as they say, and to have used replacement workers. It is just wrong. It is crucial to acknowledge that striking represents a last resort for workers, as no one desires to lose benefits and rely on strike pay. Collective bargaining, while challenging, remains the preferred solution.

Our economy relies on employers and unions engaging in meaningful negotiations to secure the best and most resilient agreements. Bill C-58 seeks to maintain focus on the bargaining table, promoting stability and certainty in supply chains and in the overall economy. While each industry and bargaining table may differ, the overarching goal is consistent: keeping parties engaged at the table, fostering a more predictable process and eliminating distractions. The legislation aims to achieve these outcomes for business, employers and unions alike. Emphasizing the importance of this approach is not only a smart strategy but also the right one. Labour has long advocated for such measures, and the positive reactions from labour leaders since the bill's introduction underscore the significance of the bill. As expressed by Gil McGowan from the Alberta Federation of Labour, “[t]his is Canadian politics at its best. This is Parliament working for workers.” Past victories by unions have significantly enhanced the ability of workers to enjoy a decent quality of life. I highlight these points because, now more than ever, legislation supporting workers is crucial.

There are members of Parliament, including the Conservative leader, with a history of attacking labour, attacking unions and undermining the interests of workers. The Conservative leader has been a strong advocate for implementing U.S.-style right-to-work laws in Canada. It is telling that the Conservatives and their leader avoid mentioning the words “union”, “labour” or “scab”. These omissions speak volumes about their anti-labour stance.

Unionized workers are currently leading the way in negotiating substantial wage increases amidst rising inflation. Moreover, it is great that an increasing number of young Canadian workers are expressing interest in the labour movement, initiating union efforts in diverse workplaces such as Uber, Starbucks and grocery stores.

Let us not forget, from during Stephen Harper's administration, the Conservative leader's anti-worker Bill C-377. The Conservatives vigorously opposed card-check legislation, which aimed to facilitate unionization. They opted instead to make things more difficult for workers and to afford employers more time to intervene in union initiatives. The Liberal government, in response, enacted legislation to reverse the anti-union Conservative amendments under Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, bills that undermined unions and the ability of workers to organize. Across Canada, employers invest millions in legal, consulting and security services to thwart union drives, ensuring their lack of success. There have been employers that have helicoptered replacement workers over picket lines into job sites.

The Conservative leader and the Conservative Party advocate importing into Canada U.S.-style right-to-work laws that weaken the labour movement by hindering unions and collective bargaining. Shamefully, the Conservative leader actively promotes right-to-work laws here in Canada. In 2012, the Conservative leader spearheaded a campaign to allow public sector workers to opt out of union dues, directly challenging the Rand formula, a rule backed by the Supreme Court that allows unions to collect dues. The Conservative leader is, unequivocally, an anti-labour-union proponent, aligning himself with extreme right-wing, MAGA politics. Despite the pivotal role played by the labour movement in securing progressive labour laws and improved working conditions, the Conservatives consistently fail to acknowledge these contributions. The Conservative leader's history reflects consistent support for anti-union, right-to-work policies looking to rob individuals of civil and job rights.

In contrast, Bill C-58 legislation under consideration would be unique, arising from tripartite collaboration among employers, workers and the government. It aims to enhance labour relations in Canada, fostering greater stability and certainty for all citizens.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and he talked about the legislation and how necessary it is. Why, in 2016 and in 2019, did he vote against legislation that would have done the same thing that the bill before us would do?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's party has always been anti-labour. The member cannot even say the word “labour”. He cannot even say the words “organized labour”. I have never heard the member say the word “union”. That is because, on that side of the House, Conservatives do not believe in labour, in fairness and in supporting workers. That is what I have seen from that side. We see it day after day. The Conservative Party is against labour, organized labour in particular, and unions here in this country.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague why the government waited so long to introduce anti-scab legislation. Quebec passed its law in 1977. Canada has had models for years and has watched Quebec evolve in that regard.

First of all, I would like to know why the government waited so long. Second, why call for an 18-month delay before the legislation comes into force? Is it because the government is hoping for a change in government before then?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right that the legislation is long overdue. The way the legislation has come together is the right way. It has been a tripartite type of agreement where business, government, and labour and unions are at the table working together. With respect to the prolonged period, the 18 months, we are working together with those groups. That is what we want to do: ensure that we get it right and that we have all the pieces in place so we have the best labour stability here in Canada. We are learning from what is happening in Quebec, with its legislation, and in British Columbia. We are taking all the best ideas and bringing them into Bill C-58. That is what we have done. We will do it at the table, working with all the parties.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my friend, in his speech, decry the fact that the Conservatives voted repeatedly for back-to-work legislation, yet, if memory serves, the Liberal Party was right there with the Conservatives when the Port of Montreal was out on strike and when Canada Post was out on strike.

Does the member's speech reflect a change of heart? If so, and I very much hope that is the case, will he apologize to the workers who were affected by such draconian legislation?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member would know or ought to know that this is something the Government of British Columbia was asking for.

What is most important here is that we understand that the best agreements are those had at the table, and that the legislation to stop replacement workers is the right legislation. It is the legislation that would level the playing field and bring fairness to workers, unions and labour, which for too long they have not had.

I am proud to stand here in my place in Parliament, advocate for Bill C-58 and make sure we bring in the best legislation possible for the workers of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we often talk about labour in terms of unions, but the union movement has had a profoundly positive impact on a wide spectrum of social issues and has improved conditions of non-union members. Can the member provide his thoughts on that issue?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is so right. This is not just about union and labour workers; this is for all workers. They have improved health and safety conditions in the workplace, improved wages in the workplace and improved benefits in the workplace. The Conservatives have voted against all of those measures and all of those things to help workers in Canada. It is unfortunate the Conservatives have been against helping the worker. I know this legislation would help all workers in Canada.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. With this piece of legislation, our government is taking meaningful action to improve labour relations in Canada and ensure that Canadian workers can benefit from good, middle-class jobs.

As we know, I come to this chamber from the riding of Halifax. Our city is home to many private and public sector unions and their workers, who continue to contribute to our local economy, to enrich our community and to build the Halifax of tomorrow.

One may be a health care worker or a schoolteacher with NSGEU, a child care worker with CUPE, a firefighter with PSAC, a shipbuilder with Unifor, an electrician with IBEW, a trucker with Teamsters Canada, a port worker with the Halifax Longshoremen's Association or a postal carrier with CUPW. These are just a few of the many union jobs done by workers in Halifax.

Since the days of Confederation, unions have gone on to build and shape the economy as we know it today. In fact, the middle class, weekends, and maternity and parental leaves were created by unions.

A union job promises a living wage that supports families and communities; it is permanent and helps build toward a pension. It provides protection and security in the workplace. These are the values that the current government believes in and the kinds of jobs that we believe Canadian workers deserve. With Bill C-58, we are staying true to the promise by banning replacement workers.

Unions have repeatedly told us that hiring replacement workers goes straight against and flies in the face of their free and fair collective bargaining power. It undermines the workers’ legitimate right to strike.

It takes away a lot of power from them at the bargaining table. It literally puts their back against the wall. It also brings frustration and increases tensions, which can sometimes lead to violence on the picket line. That can lead to rifts in a community.

Hiring replacement workers can have an impact on labour relations. Unions have told us that this creates an unequal footing in negotiations. They explain that allowing replacement workers weakens workers’ main tool to exert pressure, which is the right to withhold their labour, to withhold the means of production.

Bill C-58 would set clear rules for both parties. It would set the table for free and fair collective bargaining. It would put the employer and the union on equal footing. All they would have to do is sit down together and find a solution. If they can do that, they will bring stability and certainty. They will stimulate the country’s economy and prosperity.

On top of that, with clear and fair rules in place, we may be able to avoid unnecessary strikes and lockouts. This would create more stability for Canadians and more certainty for investors. That will secure good jobs with good working conditions for the workers.

We are banning the use of replacement workers, or scabs, because we believe in a balanced table, in truly free and fair collective bargaining.

We believe that it is not us against them. It is us, with them. Nobody should be afraid that anyone will try to take something away from them or be better off than they are. It is about helping each other out and finding a solution that will work for everybody.

That is what we are doing with Bill C-58. We are working on getting rid of some of the entrenched resentment that has built up over the years during labour disputes. We are making one of the most significant changes to the federal collective bargaining system that Canada has ever seen, in fact.

Why are we doing that? It is because workers are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and the lifeblood of our communities. They are entitled to safe workplaces and to good working conditions.

We have already done a lot in this direction. We ratified the International Labour Organization’s convention 190 to end harassment and violence in the workplace. Federally regulated private sector workers now have 10 days of paid sick leave. We are modernizing the Employment Equity Act.

Bill C-58 is the next step that will help improve work and working conditions for Canadians. It is about keeping parties focused at the table and providing more stability and certainty for the economy.

When people have good working conditions and are treated fairly by their employers, our society and our economy are more resilient. When the parties focus on the table, the deals get done and they last. The labour movement was founded on the idea that our workplaces and workers’ lives can be better. That is what we should all keep striving for.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. He talked about how necessary it is to have anti-replacement worker legislation, so I would like to give him the same opportunity as his colleague from Mississauga, who refused to answer.

If this legislation is so good and so necessary, why did he vote against similar legislation in 2016 and again in 2019?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may recall that in both cases, those labour disputes were protracted. They began to impact all Canadians in a way that was harming the economy and harming Canadians, their prosperity and their unfettered access to the services and goods they needed. However, I will stress what the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville said to the same hon. member, which is that the legislation we are presenting today is not about picking sides. It is about working together.

This spirit of togetherness is going to keep people at the table. As we all know, the table is where the best work gets done.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was alarmed to hear that the government was spending billions of dollars on a plant in Ontario that would use over 900 workers from South Korea. These would essentially be replacement workers. This is after telling Canadians time and time again how many jobs this would create.

If the government is so supportive of labour in Canada, why is it essentially farming out jobs that should be going to Canadians and sticking Canadian taxpayers with the bill?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds a little bit as though the question is straying from the intention of the bill. I am going to take the opportunity to talk about the bill a little bit more and remind members that we are banning the use of replacement workers. That is going to be very productive at the bargaining table. As we know, the use of replacement workers prolongs disputes. It can poison the workforce for years.

A good collective bargaining system and a worker's ability not only to work but also to strike are absolutely fundamental to our democracy and to the functioning of our economy.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is being very insistent. He is saying that this bill must pass, that it is important, that it is crucial and that it will make huge changes. However, why should it pass now, in 2023, when there have been 11 attempts over the past few years? Eleven similar bills have been introduced in the past, mainly by the Bloc Québécois.

What is so special about our current situation for this to be so urgent and for the Liberal government to finally believe in it?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague will not mind if I respond in English.

In fact, this commitment was in the Liberal Party's election platform in 2021, which flowed from an affirmation of the Supreme Court in 2015. Therefore, it has long been a part of Liberal DNA to protect workers and to make sure that they have access to the fair bargaining they deserve.

As the member knows, the world has been very complicated for the last couple of years, with the pandemic and the interruption of Parliament. However, I think we are pleased to be coming to this very important legislation today.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a quick question for me is this: Does this include all unions not having anti-scab legislation? If it does not, why not?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. This legislation, of course, affects what is in the purview of the federal government, which would be federal employees. These changes to collective bargaining relate only to federally regulated industries. I can be more specific for the member: The federally regulated private sector includes the following industries: banking; telecommunications and broadcasting; air, rail and marine transportation; most federal Crown corporations, for example, Canada Post; and first nations band councils.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague from Halifax leads right into my question. This legislation is going to apply to small airlines that deliver pharmaceuticals and fly air ambulances, as well as to firefighting, which could be very serious. Lives are going to be put at risk because small airlines are not going to be able to bring in replacement pilots in emergency situations. How is that going to be addressed in this legislation?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is very clear that the elimination of replacement workers would not apply in certain specific cases. These cases include potential danger to life and safety, and that is what the member is referring to; damage to the environment; significant damage to private property; and some other very limited cases, which would be under the watchful eyes of the labour regulation board.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack—Hope.

I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

It has been an interesting debate this morning. We have heard the Liberals talk about how the legislation is long overdue. They have asked how anyone could not support this type of legislation. The fact is that over the last couple of decades, and even during the eight long years of the Liberal government, every member of that caucus has voted against anti-replacement worker legislation on multiple occasions. The last two Liberal speakers voted against anti-replacement worker legislation a couple of times each, both in 2016 and 2019.

The Minister of Labour, who has been on a cross-country tour meeting with union leaders to extol the virtues of the bill, voted against similar legislation when it was introduced through private members' bills by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. He has voted against it on numerous occasions. Therefore, everyone will forgive us if we take with a grain of salt the high and mighty words and condemnations of other members of Parliament when the Liberal government has members, including the Minister of Labour, who voted the other way on this type of legislation on multiple occasions.

What has changed? We know what has changed. The government, which is continuing to make life more difficult for Canadians, owes the NDP. The NDP is back-seat driving for the Liberal government and it is quite happy to go along as long as it gets chauffeurs for their ministers and continues to enjoy the benefits of power. Multiple times the Liberal government voted the other way, so it is hard to take them seriously when Liberals talk about the urgency and necessity for legislation that they themselves railed against in the very recent past. Therefore, we will take no lessons from the Liberals on supporting union workers.

We will take no lessons from the government, which hectors the official opposition on its support for Canadian workers. Not only is the government supporting replacement workers, but it is using taxpayer dollars to do it. Let that sink in. We are talking about union and non-union workers getting up before it is light out and going to do their blue-collar jobs, in many cases sending 30%, 40% or 50% of their paycheques to different levels of government, including Ottawa. The government is then giving that money to multinational corporations that are going to use foreign replacement workers to build the plants.

It is bad enough that the government would bypass skilled Canadian labour to build projects such as the Stellantis battery plant, but to take the money those workers send to Ottawa and use it against them is the height of hypocrisy. The Liberals want to lecture others about replacement workers, but they are using foreign replacement workers not only at the Stellantis plant but at the Northvolt project in Quebec.

We now know that hundreds of taxpayer-funded, which means worker-funded, foreign replacement workers will be filling jobs that should be going to Quebeckers despite over $7 billion in taxpayer subsidies going to this project. This is the record of the Liberal government when it comes to replacement workers. It is bringing in foreign replacement workers to do the work that we know Canadians can do. The Liberals have talked about the Stellantis battery plant not having the specialized skills available to set up the plant, that they need 900 to 1,600 foreign workers, depending on who one talks to, from South Korea.

I have news for the government: We have the skilled labour that can set up those plants. We know that if we give them the plans and blueprints, they have the know-how and they will get the job done. However, the government is bringing in foreign replacement workers.

Because the government refuses to release the contracts on these “investments” of workers' money into those projects, the Conservatives have demanded that the industry committee look at this. We are demanding the release of the contracts. How many foreign replacement workers did the government negotiate in these deals?

There is $45 billion in major projects. We know now that two of them include foreign replacement workers, and we assume that the others do as well. We want answers. That is why the member for South Shore—St. Margarets has demanded emergency meetings on this issue. We will not allow the government to let this slide, at $15 billion a crack at these plants and bringing in foreign workers.

This is supposed to be about Canadian jobs and Canadian workers, yet the government continues to provide the money that Canadian workers send to Ottawa for foreign replacement workers. That is absolutely shameful and reprehensible, and the official opposition is demanding answers. We want those contracts released. If the government is still proud of those contracts, it should have no problem releasing them. However, of course, we have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way, and we are up for that fight as well.

The government continues to punish workers, not just union workers but all workers, with its carbon tax and its policies that are driving up interest rates, making it harder for workers to afford a home. It is hard to take the Liberals seriously. They feign how much they care about workers, but everything they are doing is punishing those workers who simply want to provide for their families.

We heard just this morning that a record number of Ontarians are seeking help from the food bank. That is the record of the government when it comes to workers. People are using the food bank for the very first time. Two million people a month are using a food bank. People do not know how they are going to afford to live in their own home when their mortgages come up for renewal. More money is going to service the national debt than is going to health care facilities in the provinces. These workers have to wait eight to 16 hours for their kids to be seen when they have RSV or other seasonal issues. When they are sitting in the emergency room, they can know that it is because of the reckless fiscal policies of the government that punish workers, that more money is going to service the Prime Minister's deficits and debt than is going to our health care system. Therefore, we will take no lessons from the Liberal government on supporting workers.

We will support workers by standing up for the jobs they need and standing up for the projects in which they work. The Liberal-NDP government has been the most anti-worker government in Canadian history, voting against, acting against and advocating against major energy projects, for instance, that give family supporting jobs right across the country. The government opposes those. The Liberals cannot tell me and other members of the Conservative Party that they are pro-worker. They are against the projects that workers need to put food on the table. They tax those workers and send that money to foreign replacement workers. Their policies are making the cost of living for those workers out of reach. Interest rates are going up and up. Inflation is going up and up. The government is not only doing nothing, it is making it worse.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe the member has the temerity to say that the Liberals and NDP are anti-workers. It causes me to think about the fact that there is labour component in the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Is that the reason the member opposite voted against it? If that is not the reason, could he have the courage to tell us why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why that member does not want to talk about his voting record on anti-replacement worker legislation, because he too voted against anti-replacement worker legislation in 2016 and again in 2019. However, he is good company, because so did the Minister of Labour. It was not an urgent issue until it was urgent that they get the support of the NDP to maintain their power-sharing agreement in Ottawa.

Now he has seen the light, and the light comes from the NDP, which is demanding this is the new way things are going to go. The NDP-Liberal coalition is alive and well. I understand why that member does not want to talk about this legislation or the fact that he has consistently voted against the interest of workers in our country.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy these sessions in the House, where the Conservatives and the Liberals compete over who is the worst at things. Whether it is the worst at supporting Ukraine, or the worst at supporting housing or the worst friends of workers, it is nice to hear that debate between the two of them.

I have a very serious question. The Conservatives like to talk about powerful paycheques, and we know what made powerful paycheque, the trade union movement. It was the trade union movement that raised wages. It was the trade union movement that set the standards for leave, including parental leave and sick leave, and even weekends. It was the trade union movement that set standards for occupational health and safety.

Does that mean, if the Conservatives really are the friends of workers and better friends than the Liberals, that they are going to be supporting this legislation in order to make paycheques more powerful?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for recognizing it is the Conservatives who are fighting for more powerful paycheques, and that would start by getting rid of things like the NDP-Liberal carbon tax, which drives up the cost of everything, including groceries, gas and home heating. We certainly want to have more money go to workers. As well, when the workers' money is taxed, we do not expect that money to go to foreign replacement workers, which is what we have seen under the Liberal government with the Stellantis battery plant and the Northvolt project in Quebec.

The Conservatives support workers, whether they are in trade unions or not, and workers support the Conservative Party, as we have seen from the bring it home events that the Leader of the Opposition has held right across the country. The polling certainly shows workers are on the side of the Conservative Party, just like we are on the side of workers.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Chilliwack—Hope has made an important point about the job-destroying track record of the government when it comes to energy policy. These are unionized workers, non-unionized workers and indigenous workers. These are every kind of worker in some of the highest-paying, best jobs in the Canadian economy.

Could he comment on the government's track record on jobs in this industry?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is abysmal. The Liberals have not only driven out hundreds of billions of dollars in investment in our country, but they have driven away the jobs that go with that.

Whether it is in forestry, mining or oil and gas, the Liberal-NDP government consistently opposes those projects that put people to work, that give them economic opportunity and the opportunity to provide for their communities and families. Instead, it advocates against those projects and gets them shut down. Then when the workers send their hard-earned money to Ottawa, the government turns around and gives it to multinational corporations to hire foreign temporary replacement workers. We will never support that kind of a plan.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since I was elected in 2015, I have spent most of my energy speaking up for the workers I represent in Calgary. They have been systematically crushed by the government, its NDP coalition partner and, sadly, from 2015 to 2019, by a short-lived NDP government in Alberta. Therefore, this bill is not one that is going to be a great prescriptive answer for workers in my riding. They have been punished by the government and it appears they will continue to be so.

I am passionate about the freedom of workers in my riding to work, about their freedom to organize and to bargain collectively through union membership. I am passionate about freedom of association. It is an essential and foundational freedom on which our country was built. Let there be no doubt about that.

Also, let there be no doubt that there is only one party in the House of Commons that supports worker, which is this party. The other three parties in the House have never supported the workers in my community. Everything the NDP-Liberal government and its fellow travellers in the Bloc do, every instinct they possess runs counter to the interests of the workers in my riding.

Let us examine the track record of the NDP-Liberal government as it relates to the workers in my community. The very first thing the government did, even before Parliament met for the first time, was to cancel the northern gateway pipeline by an order in council. This decision instantly killed thousands of jobs, union jobs, non-union jobs, indigenous community jobs, every kind of job one can imagine.

The people who would have been employed by that project were among the highest-paid workers in the Canadian economy. Had that critical infrastructure actually been built, it would have led to thousands of new jobs in extraction projects that never materialized for the lack of infrastructure that the government deliberately killed. It was literally the first thing it did when it took office.

It also denied the world access to Canada's energy products, leaving it vulnerable to dictator oil, much to our folly and what we see tragically happening in the world today as Putin funds his war machine with energy exports that could have been displaced by Canadian exports.

The Liberals passed Bill C-69, which ensured that no major project would ever be approved again. They used to have talking points that tried to deny that was case, but when the Minister of Environment was a candidate, he let the mask slip and admitted that killing the energy industry was exactly the purpose of Bill C-69. Who is paying for this? It is the workers who are paying for the destruction to the Canadian economy that has happened in this sector under the government. That bill ruined the lives of thousands of workers and their families. Under the NDP-Liberal government, 200,000 energy workers lost their job. I say that deliberately.

Let us not forget that before the federal NDP-Liberal coalition took place, there was a different alliance between the NDP and the Liberals, and that was the Alberta NDP and the federal government. Together they destroyed thousands of jobs and the lives that depended on them.

Again, these were union jobs, non-union jobs and indigenous community jobs. The callous way in which the NDP and the Liberals threw away all these jobs and made sure they would not come back is shameful. Therefore, we will take no lessons from them on protecting jobs for workers, whether they belong to a union or not.

I have said before in the House, especially between 2015 and 2018, that I had grown men in their fifties reduced to tears in my office over the loss of their livelihoods. These are highly paid, professional, proud people. Some of them were old enough that they had entered the workforce when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister. They told me that they had even managed to survive the NEP, but now they did not have a job. Women, who had reached the senior levels of corporate Calgary, were suddenly without a job.

I have knocked on doors. I knocked on one door where a mom said their family came to Canada 20 years ago. Her husband was working in the Middle East and her son was working in Texas. They had to leave the country for work in the energy industry. I will take nothing from the government on jobs.

What are the Liberals doing now? They are subsidizing replacement workers from foreign countries to come and take work away that should be given to Canadians. There was $7 billion for the Northvolt project with foreign replacement workers. There was $15 billion to Stellantis for foreign replacement workers. It is disgraceful and it is shameful the way the Liberals come here and try to lecture Conservatives on supporting workers.

We are now at the end of the year. The NDP-Liberal government tabled this bill banning replacement workers in federally regulated industries as per the demand put upon the government by the NDP. This is not what the Liberals campaigned on. This is something the Liberals voted against. The NDP has tabled this very policy in the House through private members' business.

The same Liberals who are speaking this morning in debate, who voted against this, would now have people believe that this is somehow part of their policy and what they ran on. This is clearly a long-standing NDP policy, but this is nothing more than the NDP tail wagging the Liberal dog. That is exactly why we call it the NDP-Liberal government.

The bill would ban workers from working in federally regulated industries if the workers who belong to a union go on strike. It is a bill that risks pitting workers against each other. Workers who choose not to join a union are workers too. Workers across picket lines are workers too, but not to the NDP-Liberals.

I even heard this morning the use of dehumanizing language. The Liberals referred to these workers as “scabs”. Let us think about that. It is a degrading, humiliating and dehumanizing word they used, not because this is about power for workers. It is not. It is about control and that is why they use this type of language.

The market is an amazing and undeniable force of nature, and it does tend to sort things out quickly. It allows the best decisions to be made at the bargaining table and incentivizes agreements. The government is presiding over a cost-of-living crisis where rent has doubled, mortgage payments are up 150% and a generation of young Canadian workers have given up on the dream of home ownership because they cannot afford to live in this country. We have seen food inflation. We have seen every kind of inflation fuelled by taxes paid by workers.

The NDP-Liberal government has nothing to teach Conservatives or tell Canadians about supporting workers. There is only one party that is supporting workers, the one party that stands for powerful paycheques that can be used to buy homes that people can afford in safe communities. That is what the Conservative vision is for this country. It is not spending billions of tax dollars, paid for by workers, to pay foreign workers to come and take their jobs away from them and bid up the price of homes in their communities. It is shameful.

I will take no lessons from the Liberal-NDP government on support for workers. The workers in my riding have seen the sharp end of the Liberal government. I saw desperation at people's doors, especially in the 2019 election. The community I represent is full of talented, hard-working, ambitious workers who have been crushed by the government.

The good news is they see hope. They know workers are increasingly turning to the Conservative Party, and it is the workers in Canada who are going to elect a Conservative government that will deliver powerful paycheques that Canadians need to be able to afford to live, and rein in the wasteful spending and corporate welfare that has become endemic under the government.

It is only the Conservatives in this place who are standing up for workers in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying to support workers and jobs. Trade agreements support workers and jobs, yet we saw just last week that the Conservative Party, en masse, voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Can the member indicate why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that question was out of order for relevance, but I can understand why this member would not wish to ask a question relevant to the speech that I just made; he knows he is one of the members who has already voted against anti-replacement worker legislation in this House more than once. Therefore, I fully understand why the member will not talk about the bill or ask me a question about this bill. It is because his flip-flop that he is undertaking right now is not something that he wants well understood by his constituents, perhaps.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just following up on some of the remarks that the member made about Canada's oil and gas industry, I wonder if he can confirm, as I believe is true, that the Canadian oil and gas sector today extracts more barrels per day than at any other time in Canadian history. I wonder if the member wants to confirm the number, above and beyond the over $30 billion that the current Liberal government has put into the TMX pipeline and the amount of public subsidy for the Canadian oil and gas sector.

While he is at it, perhaps the member has numbers for temporary foreign workers who work in the oil and gas industry because it has certainly made use of TFWs and workers under the international labour mobility program as well. Perhaps the member would like to comment on those phenomena.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is demand for the product that the energy industry produces. Despite everything that the current government has done to kill that industry, the billions and billions of dollars that the businesses lost and the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, we are a long way from catching up to where we could have been and the promise that existed.

With respect to the TMX, the member is right to bring up the waste on that. This is a project that should have been built with private capital. We had a private proponent who was going to build the TMX with its own money. If it ballooned from $4 billion to $30 billion, that would be on the proponent and its shareholders to worry about. However, it is the people and the workers of Canada who are paying for the overage now that the government has been put in a position to nationalize it after it chased private capital out.

With respect to the member's third question, I oppose the subsidizing of any industry where the crown is subsidizing a private business on the promise of creating jobs when it is really just importing temporary labour, bidding up the cost of housing and making the taxpayer, the workers in Canada, pay for the jobs for the foreign replacement workers.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977. From what I understand, the Conservatives are against passing a similar law in Canada.

Can my colleague tell me whether he thinks Quebec made a mistake by passing that law in 1977?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to put this all on that particular policy change in 1977. Maybe even going back earlier than 1977, the Province of Quebec has been the laggard in the Canadian economy for most of these past 45 years. Its per capita GDP has been much lower than other provinces. If the member would ask me if there is a grand economic success behind the policies of Quebec, we could have that discussion. I do not think it is really appropriate for the purpose of this chamber, but I do not see a connection to a grand period of economic expansion behind that policy in 1977.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I want to start by reminding Canadians that the middle class in Canada was built on the union movement. It was not until we had a strong union movement that we developed a strong middle class.

There have been a number of studies over the years by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Centre for Future Work and others that have shown that, starting in about the 1980s, union density, which is just a fancy word for what percentage of workers belong to a union, has gone down, from 38% in 1981 to just 29% in 2022. That is a Stats Canada number. That number, according to these studies, correlates with a decrease in the number of Canadians who belong to the Canadian middle class and with the decline in real wages for Canadian workers.

We see that belonging to a union has meant more powerful paycheques for Canadians, has meant more job stability in many cases and has meant a stronger Canadian economy overall. When we see fewer workers belonging to unions, we see more vulnerability for those workers, lower pay and consequences for the Canadian economy.

When workers are well paid for the work they do and they have spending power in the local economy, that helps feed local businesses, helps feed our economy and creates strong conditions for business. That is the lesson of Henry Ford, who is by no means a socialist, but even he realized that if we do not pay workers well enough to buy products in the economy, it is not long before the economy overall suffers, as well-paid workers are the cornerstone of prosperity.

How is it that the union movement has been able to win powerful paycheques for workers or to help them win them for themselves? There are many components to the labour movement. There are many ways they do advocacy, and there are many ways that workers within the union movement advocate for themselves and for fellow workers. However, all of that, at the rock bottom, is supported ultimately by the ability to strike.

That means the ability to say they are not satisfied with the terms and conditions of work, whether that is pay, benefits, pension, workplace procedures or workplace safety and health, and that they are not going to go into work on those terms and conditions. They want to stand with the people in their workplaces who feel similarly and demand better. Ultimately, all of us in a workplace, if we are of the same mind, should be able to withhold our labour.

The right to strike is the most important principle that subtends all of the power and influence the union movement has had in order to improve the position of Canadian workers. The most significant way this can be undermined is when employers are allowed to hire replacement workers during a strike. While some workers are out on the picket line saying they deserve better pay or want to address workplace safety and health issues, other workers come in the back door, perform their work and sometimes get paid, egregiously, on better terms than the workers who are out on strike were paid before the strike began.

New Democrats have been arguing alongside the labour movement for decades now and have presented, many times, legislation that would end the practice of employers being allowed to bring in replacement workers. The Liberals will say this was a campaign commitment of theirs. However, if we look at their platform, it is not true. It was a commitment they made to ban replacement workers when companies lock out their workers essentially to impose a strike.

It is only since the NDP used our power in this Parliament that the proposal became a comprehensive one that defends the right to strike instead of offering punishment to employers who would lock workers out. What we need in order to vouchsafe the power of Canadian workers' paycheques and the right to strike is a ban on replacement workers in the context of a strike as well. I am very proud to be part of an NDP caucus that has delivered that and made sure that this legislation does the whole job and properly respects and protects Canadian workers' right to strike.

It is the kind of legislation we needed for almost six years when IBEW Local 213 was out on the picket line against Ledcor trying to secure a first contract. Nobody ends up with a six-year labour dispute unless an employer is using replacement workers. The business wraps up a lot sooner than six years if it is not using replacement workers. What that means is the business is forced to bargain.

In this House, I have watched as Liberals and Conservatives voted together. As I have said, the real coalition in Ottawa is the Liberal-Conservative coalition. It voted to order workers back to work, to essentially take away their right to strike. We saw it with the Port of Montreal and we saw it with Canada Post workers.

Notable have been the examples where the federal government has refused to say that it will legislate workers back to work, because then we saw the company come to a deal. One of those instances was in 2019 with CN. CN was asking for back-to-work legislation. The government departed from its usual tack and refused to promise back-to-work legislation. Very soon after the federal government clearly refused the idea of bringing in back-to-work legislation, we saw a resolution to the strike. The company's strategy for bargaining could not use the federal government to get out of paying workers their fair share and to circumvent a real negotiation at the table.

It is likewise with replacement workers. If replacement workers are banned so that they cannot be part of the bargaining strategy of a company, we will see more speedy resolutions to labour disputes and ultimately, I believe, fewer labour disputes. In fact, there is some evidence for this from jurisdictions with anti-scab legislation. Those who say this is a travesty that would prolong labour disputes or that there would be more labour disputes are speaking against the evidence and, frankly, have an ignorance of how collective bargaining works and the ways companies mobilize replacement workers in order to get out of having to bargain fairly at the table.

We have heard a cornucopia of red herrings in this debate. We have heard Tories talk about replacement workers at battery plants that have not even been built yet. I share their concern about tax dollars being invested to create jobs for Canadians. Those are legitimate issues, but they do not have a place in a debate about anti-scab legislation.

The Tories are using a new term they are developing today for replacement workers to distract from the fact that they refuse to take a clear position on whether they support replacement workers coming in the back door while real, current Canadian workers are out on strike bargaining for better pay and a better future. That is a red herring. Canadian workers should not allow them to get away with being dishonest, quite frankly, about their position on anti-scab legislation by trying to distract with this other conversation, an important conversation but a different conversation nevertheless. This is our time to have a conversation about replacement workers in the case of a strike.

The Conservatives want to talk about the NDP wagging the Liberal dog. There is some truth to that on this point, for sure. As I said, the commitment the Liberals made is not what they are moving ahead with. We have a formula that would protect workers' right to strike. I am proud of that. They can go sing that from the mountaintops. We are also doing that. We want workers to know that we have their backs when they are out on strike, like the Ledcor workers, who needed legislation like this.

I would remind Canadians, too, of Bill C-377, from the Parliament when the Conservative leader sat at the cabinet table, and Bill C-525, bills that would have made it much easier to decertify a union in the workplace, not with the touted 50%-plus-one majority that is talked about when it is time to form a union, but with a 40% minority. That is how the Conservatives would have allowed unions to be decertified in a workplace. Not only that, but they would have required a bunch of sensitive financial information about individual union members to be published online, which would have put workers at a serious disadvantage in their strike position because it would have required unions to reveal the amount in their strike fund to employers so they could plan to bring in replacement workers and wait out the strike fund.

Give me a break when Conservatives say they are standing up for workers. We know that a strong union movement is integral to the powerful paycheques that Canadian middle-class workers have been able to bring home. We know that banning replacement workers is important to protect that. That is why New Democrats are proud we have this legislation before the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member made indirect reference to the part of the Liberal election platform that said we would bring forward back-to-work legislation. I am glad there is a high sense of co-operation taking place between the New Democratic Party and the government to ensure this legislation passes. I see that as a good thing. The labour movement benefits not only union members but non-union members, and in fact all of society collectively.

My question for my friend is with regard to this being federal legislation, which only considers a certain percentage of the overall population in Canada. I think the member might know where I am going with this question. I would like provincial jurisdictions to follow suit with Quebec and B.C. The other day I made a mistake. It was an NDP government in B.C. that brought this in and a Liberal government in Quebec, which again shows that this goes beyond one political party.

Would the member not agree, with the legislation we are seeing today in Ottawa, that it would be nice to see other provincial jurisdictions follow suit and bring in similar legislation?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this legislation in jurisdictions across the country. I was very proud that the new premier in Manitoba, Wab Kinew, in the election campaign that led to his premiership, committed to bringing in anti-scab legislation in Manitoba. I very much look forward to seeing the Government of Manitoba move ahead with that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I both reacted to the answer that a Conservative member gave earlier to my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles's question, which was very well put. Quebec was ahead of its time with its anti-scab legislation. Such a law is already in effect in Quebec. However, one political party is trying to make a dubious connection between Quebec supposedly being an “economic laggard ” and this legislation. I say “supposedly”, because I do not agree with that at all.

I would like my colleague to talk about the dubious connection that my Conservative colleague made.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that calling it a “dubious connection” is very generous. I see no connection at all between the bill preventing Quebec employers from using scab workers and an economic situation that is not working in Quebec. Those are my colleague's words, not mine. I think he was linking one thing to something that does not exist. Even if it did, it would still be a dubious connection.

Therefore, I would say that that comment was absurd.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed proud that it was the government in British Columbia that brought in the provincial version of this legislation. I very much look forward to the member's province following suit in short order.

We obviously have the opportunity, should this bill pass at second reading, to strengthen it at committee. I wonder if the member could share his thoughts on what ways this bill could be strengthened beyond what we see before us.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the thing the New Democrats will be looking for assistance on most of all is the coming-into-force provisions. Right now, as the bill stands, there is an 18-month coming-into-force period after royal assent. We think that is a lot longer than it needs to be. As I recall, when we first started talking about implementing a dental plan, we heard from the government it would take seven years. We pushed back and it is getting done in 18 months.

We know that initial bureaucratic deadlines are often padded. New Democrats think that can come down, and we will be looking for the assistance of other members of this House to make that happen. If Conservatives are anywhere near as worker-friendly as they like to make themselves out to be, perhaps they will work with us to amend the bill at committee and move up the coming-into-force date.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to enter into debate on this anti-scab legislation.

This legislation is so important because we know that workers are struggling out there. We know that, when we have the union supporting us and fighting for us for better working conditions, better treatment and better wages, we are elevating the workforce not only for union members but also for all workers across the country.

I have been working ever since I was in grade 4, but years ago, I was a student trying to make ends meet through the course of the summer and to pay for my university tuition. I started working as a dishwasher, and later on that summer, I landed a job as the mail girl, which was the actual title at that company. Unfortunately, there was a strike, and for that entire summer, I did not make any money. I walked the pickets though, and I learned a lot about the labour movement and the importance and history of it.

I learned what the labour movement was fighting for and what it meant for the family members of those in that fight. I had a choice as a student to just say, “Hey, I don't have time for this” and find myself another summer job, but I did not do that. I stayed on the picket line to support those families and learn about that history. For me, it was such an important lesson. In fact, I learned so much, it was much more than I could have learned otherwise in any other scenario. Since then, I have been converted to believe in the labour movement, its history and what it means for current day workers.

We are talking about anti-scab legislation today. What does it really mean when we refer to “anti-scab” legislation? It is the importance of respecting and protecting the value of the workers in a particular union in a particular workforce. It means bringing balance to the whole equation of the imbalance of power for employers. All too often, employers will leverage different powers against the workers, and an example of that would be to bring in workers from outside to cross the picket line and undermine the position of existing workers. There are times when workers are even locked out while the employer brings in outside workers to do the work of the existing workers. This is to undermine them, drive them out and, really, dismantle labour and the voices of the workers.

The NDP, as members know, was founded by the CCF, by the labour movement. We strongly believe in the rights of workers. However, this is not the first time that the NDP has brought forward anti-scab legislation. We have done this at least eight times over the last number of years, most recently in 2016. However, both Liberals and Conservatives voted against the NDP's legislation on anti-scab workers. Fast-forward to today, and 25 New Democrats were able to force the Liberal government to take action in a minority government. We are now seeing anti-scab legislation tabled and debated in the House.

Our leader had a press event on the morning before the legislation was moved, which was held just outside of this chamber, with labour leaders. The media asked: “How is this relevant today? Are there any examples of where this is happening today?”

Well, as it happens, in my own riding of Vancouver East, at the Rogers site, workers were being locked out and Rogers was bringing in scab workers, and not from just within the local community. When I visited the picket line, the workers were telling me that the company was bringing in workers from outside of the country. It was bringing in workers from Toronto, and paying for them to come to Vancouver to do the work of the members there. I was at the picket line late afternoon on a Friday and then again on the Saturday. On the Friday afternoon, scab workers were driving in and out of the site, and the workers who were picketing there were being undermined by those scab workers.

That means the workers will not be able to get the wages they need to support their own families, especially at a time when the cost of living and housing costs are so high. People need to be respected.

However, they were not necessarily fighting about wages. They were fighting for job protection. I met workers at that picket line who have been there for 30 plus years. They told me that they are not in this fight for themselves but are in this fight for future generations. They are close to retirement and want to make sure future workers coming in will not be undermined by the employer and that they will have the ability to fight for their working conditions and their rights.

They were there to bring balance to the equation of the power imbalance between the worker and the employer. They want to make this mark, not just for themselves, but for future generations. They also know, when they make this mark in this fight, they will impact other workers outside of Rogers. They want to move the entire labour force forward for workers. This is what the labour union movement has been about. That is what this anti-scab legislation is also about for these workers at Rogers.

I understand they have come to a tentative agreement, so fingers crossed that things will go through smoothly. However, it did not have to be this way. If this legislation had been in place, this would not have happened to those workers. This is what we are talking about, which is the need to protect workers.

The Conservatives claim they support workers. Talk is cheap. They need to show it in action. The Conservatives and their leader have a choice right now on what they are going to do with this bill. Are they going to support this bill, or are they going to play silly buggers, with games, in delaying the passage of this bill?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been lots of discussions on how we need to treat one another civilly. We should not be referring to one another with unparliamentary names. I would suggest that that is what that was, and I would ask the member to withdraw the comment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I tend to agree that we should not be calling each other names.

The hon. member for Vancouver East could maybe retract that and then we could move on.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are sensitive. I will retract the words “silly buggers”, but will they stop playing games with this bill and stop undermining the rights of workers? Will they end the debates in the House for what has already being studied, for example at committee, to delay the passage of bills, as they have done on the GST exemption bill for housing?

We have seen them play this game over and over again, so will they do what is right by the workers? Will they show their support in voting for this bill, or will they continue to distract from the work that is so necessary for the rights of workers? Time will tell, and the votes will come up. I urge the Conservatives to move forward in doing what is right.

In addition, I urge the government to move the timeline. Instead of 18 months for this bill to come into effect, I urge the government to bring it forward now to protect the workers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things the member said that I agreed with this afternoon. When we speak of Bill C-58, we often talk about labour in the form of unions. One of the things I want to emphasize and ask her thoughts on relates to unions and negotiations and how non-union workers have benefited because of union workers. We have seen this through generations. There are many social causes at the forefront today, even going all the way back, and social programs that came out of pressures and advocacy of unions.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on this being great legislation and that we should be getting it passed. We can look at the possibility of amendments at the committee stage, which would be wonderful. Could she just add her thoughts to the many contributions unions have made to our communities over many decades?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the labour movement has paved the way for better working conditions and wages for all workers, not just for people with a union. They are also working hard to make sure that those without unions have a chance to unionize.

We call on the Liberal government to make efforts to facilitate that process instead of impeding it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a theme of this debate on anti-scab legislation that the Conservatives have tried to change the topic and talk about something else. They have talked a lot about temporary foreign workers in the context of this debate.

I wonder if my colleague from Vancouver East would like to comment on the fact that, in the oil and gas industry, we see a lot of public subsidies. We also see the use of a lot of temporary foreign workers. One company, the Horizon Oil Sands project, was singled out for terrible abuses of temporary foreign workers. They were stealing their paycheques. Two fatalities happened on that job. We did not hear at that time about Conservatives wanting to take away public funds, even though perhaps that should have been the conversation. They were in government at the time. The use of temporary foreign workers between 2006, the first year of the Harper government, and 2011, just mid-term, escalated by 69%, and there were more people coming to Canada under the TFW program than there were through the normal immigration streams.

I wonder if the member for Vancouver East would like to take some time to enlighten Canadians on the Conservative track record when it comes to TFWs.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Conservatives have relied heavily on temporary foreign workers for the oil and gas sector and for many sectors. In that process, what are they doing? They are allowing for the exploitation of workers because they do not have permanent resident status. They are absolutely relying on the employer, and they face abuses and exploitation that are out of the ordinary. That needs to stop.

The Liberals, though, also continue to rely on temporary foreign workers. That needs to stop, too. That is why New Democrats have called for landed status on arrival now. We have also called on the government to regularize existing workers who are here in Canada, so they can have their rights protected.

Will the Conservatives show up for workers, and for the immigrant community, particularly?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member knows, Greens support this legislation, but we are concerned that, once again, the coming into force date is 18 months away. It is the same thing we saw in play with the Canada disability benefit, where members of the governing party have this rush in their rhetoric, but then, once the bill passes, it waits for far too long.

She mentioned at the end of her speech her concern with how long we would have to wait and whether an amendment could be brought forward to address this.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the government could move this forward. It is the NDP's intention to amend the 18-month timeline. There is no reason to wait that long for it to come into force and effect. In fact, when I was on the picket line with Rogers workers, one of the first questions to me was: Why 18 months? Why so long? It is not reasonable. Workers said that six to 12 months could be accepted, but 18 months is out of touch with reality.

We want to see that amendment go through. We want the government to do what is right and to actually follow up with real action to move that timeline up from 18 months.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the government's legislation only covers federally regulated private organizations. If we want to make sure that replacement workers are not brought in, then why does it not apply to the public sector employees the federal government is in charge of, as well as the contracts they are signing with companies such as Stellantis, which is going to bring in 1,600 foreign workers?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives were really concerned about workers and getting anti-scab legislation, first, they would actually vote for this and not play games with it. Second, I would like to hear them say they are against scabs and that they are against scab workers crossing picket lines. I have not heard them say that in this entire debate.

The other thing I would like to see them do would be to call on the provincial governments, call on their buddy from Alberta, Danielle Smith, to bring in anti-scab legislation for Albertans. That would go a long way. Next, they should go to Ontario and call on Doug Ford to do exactly that as well.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I feel like saying, “at long last”. It was about time we got Bill C-58, a federal anti-scab bill. We have been calling for one for ages. The Bloc Québécois will definitely be supporting the bill in principle.

It might bear repeating that the Bloc Québécois has tabled several bills in the House aimed at ending the use of scabs during labour disputes. The first one was tabled by our colleague, the dean of the House, before the Bloc Québécois even existed. There have been 11 bills total. Although Canada is 46 years behind Quebec, because Quebec has had an anti-scab law on the books since 1977, this bill is a great accomplishment, but there was a lot of catching up to do to address the power imbalance in the employer-union relationship.

We were delighted when the bill was introduced. We welcomed it. We decided that it if was good for the workers of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois would support it. We think it was welcomed in all quarters, by the major unions of both Quebec and Canada. They have been calling for such a bill for years, even during consultations with the government in 2021 and 2022. The government announced that it would introduce a bill by late December 2023. It has done it, but we said at the time that that date was too far away and much too late. Some will say better late than never, but in this case, every passing day is a grave injustice for workers. The fact that the Canada Labour Code still allows the use of replacement workers in the event of a dispute creates a serious power imbalance.

Why is this so important? At the very least, it is a question of rights and freedoms. I just want to remind my colleagues that in the 2015 Saskatchewan ruling, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, recognized that the right to strike is not merely derivative of the right to bargain and to organize, it is indispensable in our society. That makes this right as important as the right to bargain. Using replacement workers and allowing them to be used in the event of a strike or a lockout is tantamount to fundamentally denying the right to strike. This problem absolutely had to be fixed.

This bill will also restore the balance of power. Now we will hear employers and big industry rise up against the bill, as we have heard them do before. They will argue that the bill will create an imbalance, that it will be dangerous for supply chains and the economy. The opposite is true. Back in 1977, the strikes in Quebec were tough. There was violence on the picket lines. That is one of the reasons Quebec passed a law to restore balance, as well as to restore a certain degree of industrial peace in labour disputes.

The only leverage available to a union or workers in the event of a dispute with the employer is their final resort: a strike. Employers have a similar right, the right to lockout. If employers are allowed to use replacement workers on top of imposing a lockout, they will be living the high life.

What does an employer stand to gain by settling the dispute as long as other workers cross the picket lines and are able to do the work without anyone getting their nose bent out of shape? What is happening right now in Quebec?

The conflict at the Port of Québec has been going on for almost two years. For more than 18 months, unionized workers with the Canadian Union of Public Employees have been locked out. What is more, the port is using replacement workers—scabs—who are often paid more than the employees, so the dispute continues. No one is getting worried. No one is connecting the dots. In terms of the economy, it is the workers who provide services at our ports, on our waterways and as part of our major infrastructure. They are part of those supply chains people talk about.

When workers do not have good working conditions, which is what they are demanding by going on strike, and when the dispute drags on, workplaces get weaker. Occupational health and safety can also be compromised, because replacement workers do not always have all the skills and attributes it takes to do the job. We have to pay attention to that.

We often see people act like the sky is falling when port workers go on strike. Just look at what happened at the Port of Vancouver. With the strike not even 24 hours old, people were already panicking and demanding special legislation. In many situations, disputes involving workers under federal jurisdiction were ended by either passing special legislation or allowing scab labour. That makes no sense anymore. This situation must be addressed.

We are pleased to see a bill on this matter. What worries us now, and with good reason, is whether the bill will succeed this time. How fast will the government move this bill forward to make sure it is not simply an intention that ends up dying on the Order Paper because it did not have enough time to make it through the process?

We are saying this for a reason. The bill already states that the legislation will not come into force until 18 months after royal assent. That is a year and a half. How can we count on that? There is no justification for that. I think things are clear. The provisions to be amended in the Canada Labour Code are quite clear.

There is no need to wait 18 months. The time frame must be shortened so that the bill comes into force as soon as it receives royal assent, as most other acts do. We can make it happen. We need to be able to respond to workers and give them what they need. It cannot just be wishful thinking.

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me I am out of time. Sign language is very difficult for me to understand.

I will conclude by saying that we absolutely must speed up the process. We need to ensure that this bill does not give full legitimacy to the right to strike and lockout by prohibiting replacement workers while at the same time limiting that same right to strike.

This is essential. The bill requires two major corrections.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not here earlier when the Speaker made his ruling. I would like to offer my apologies and withdraw the unparliamentary language I used last week.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for his retraction and apology.

Moving on to questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate that there have been concerns raised regarding the date this would take effect after receiving royal assent. I do believe at the committee stage, if not even before committee stage, members could always approach the minister, I am sure directly, to find out some of the rationale that was used.

On the member's personal experience and knowledge of what has happened in the province of Quebec, we all know that Quebec has led the country in anti-scab legislation, which was first enacted many, many years ago. I have always advocated for anti-scab legislation and supporting the collective bargaining system. To me, this legislation does just that. I wonder if the member could provide her insight, being from the province of Quebec, on how the community has benefited labour, in particular, and even non-unionized people.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is it a benefit? I dare say it is a right.

It has become important in terms of regulating labour relations during disputes. We know it is a fundamental right, as I just said. Allowing this right to be fully exercised without interference forces the parties to come to a satisfactory agreement. When there is a greater balance of power, both sides are encouraged to resolve disputes faster. It also prevents serious health and safety issues. It makes a return to work possible. I am not saying that returning to work is always an easy task. There has to be some level of industrial peace to keep fighting.

When the sword of Damocles hangs above one's head, and nobody on the employer's side has any interest in settling, it can only poison the labour environment. A law that protects basic rights effectively ensures some level of industrial peace during negotiations.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member shares with me my enthusiasm for this new legislation in that it has something that Quebec and British Columbia both lack, which is attention to the fact that, with the rise of remote work, there is often no longer a physical picket line to cross, so this new legislation that we are bringing forward would be an improvement over both Quebec and British Columbia in that it anticipates strikebreaking could be done through remote work.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some Quebec unions welcome this bill. I will talk only about Quebec, not British Columbia.

People have already had to turn to the courts in Quebec. Quebec's legislation was passed in 1977. Of course, in 2023, the whole workplace issue has changed; I am thinking among other things of telework. The bill will settle questions raised by Quebec workers concerning place of work and new definitions. That is a plus.

However, an even bigger plus would be for the bill to come to fruition quickly.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that Conservatives have with this legislation is that it would not impact the federal government itself. Does the member share that concern as well?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we say it is important to pass this bill and send it to committee, it is because we see that it would not affect federal employees. That is rather worrisome.

During the last strike, federal employees who were working from home or working as subcontractors were perhaps being pushed by their employer, the government, to be scabs. We must not fall on our own sword. The things we want to protect in the private sector are the same things that should also be protected in the public sector.

I sincerely hope that the Conservative Party will support this bill so that we can treat it as a matter that is just as urgent and pressing as other legislative measures.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill.

As my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville said, we feel like saying “finally”. The Bloc Québécois has been working for an extremely long time to have such a bill introduced and studied.

As my colleague mentioned, the first time a Bloc Québécois member introduced an anti-scab bill was in 1990. I was not even born in 1990. That was a long time ago. It was our dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel who introduced a similar bill. After that, we did the same thing 11 more times. The Bloc Québécois introduced similar bills 11 times. In other words, if the Bloc Québécois had been in power, we certainly would have passed such a bill by now. However, the Bloc Québécois has no aspirations to be in power.

That being said, I am glad to finally see, in 2023, that the other parties in the House—the NDP and the Liberal Party, at least—have made this a priority. I am eager to start working on this bill. I also want to highlight the work done by my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who just spoke. She has been the Bloc Québécois critic for labour for the past four years, and she does an amazing job. She is there for workers and unions. She is a former union leader herself. I think we can all thank her. I will do it on behalf of my colleagues, because she definitely played a part in the tabling of this bill. I think that many workers in Quebec will thank her for her work once this bill is passed.

She also said that, in Quebec, we may have been pioneers. We passed this type of legislation in 1977, and that created two classes of workers in Quebec with respect to scabs, federally regulated workers and all the others. This bill will finally eliminate these two classes of workers, at least that is our hope. As I heard in previous discussions, this bill even takes some steps forward, so we are extremely pleased about that. This bill is being applauded by several unions in Quebec, including Unifor and the United Steelworkers. In fact, I would say that this bill is being applauded by most unions. Everyone is very happy about it.

In that regard, my thoughts are with the Front commun workers in Québec who are on strike for better working conditions. Obviously, that is not exactly the same situation, but I am still thinking of them. I think that these exercises are extremely important. Even though the workers in that case are employed by the Government of Quebec, we can still stand in solidarity with them.

I have heard about this type of bill because of all the bills the Bloc Québécois has introduced over the years. I have also been approached by people who told me how important anti-scab legislation is, including a friend in telecommunications. He wrote to me several times in the past few months to find out if this was in the pipeline. He heard that the federal government wanted to introduce this kind of bill. He wanted to know whether it had been introduced or when it would be. I was always very disappointed that I had no news to give him and that I could not tell him it was coming or that we had started debating it. We had no news, and it took a very long time for the government to introduce the bill. My thoughts are with him and all his colleagues in the telecommunications sector, who will be significantly affected by this bill.

The bill proposes a ban on the use of replacement workers, including subcontracted workers, unless one of the following three situations arises. The first is a “threat to the life, health or safety of any person”. These terms may need to be better defined when the bill is being studied. That is why the Bloc Québécois hopes that the bill will be referred to committee so that we can examine these questions in greater depth and have a little more clarity. The bill also refers to a “threat of destruction of, or serious damage to, the employer's property or premises”. There is also mention of a “threat of serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises”.

The bill also proposes a complete ban on crossing the picket line, including by employees in the same work unit. It also proposes issuing fines of up to $100,000 per day when the employer fails to comply with the law.

Bill C‑58 would also require employers and unions to sign an agreement at the start of negotiations to specify which operations must be continued in the event of a strike or lockout, and they would have 15 days to do it. If they do not come to an agreement, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would decide within 90 days which operations would be continued. The minister would still have the power to refer the issue to the board to protect the health and safety of the Canadian population.

As I mentioned earlier, some of the points will need to be looked at in committee. There is the issue of the 90-day period for the Canada Industrial Relations Board that we, at the Bloc Québécois, have looked into. It seems needlessly long. A 60-day period might be more appropriate. We will have to see with the experts that will appear before the committee. There is also the definition of the exception for threats to the life, health or safety of any person. Exceptions like this one cannot be allowed to become catch-all measures that can be pulled out from a hat to bring everything to a halt. That will have to be looked at in committee. There is also the 18-month timeframe before the bill comes into force. My colleague alluded to that. It is obviously too long. Anyone who has ever gone on strike or been locked out knows how important this bill is. I have a friend who asked me every month if this bill was coming, because it is definitely important for these workers. Is it really necessary to wait 18 months after royal assent? That begs the question. Our leader spoke publicly on that subject.

We need to pass this bill as soon as possible. Obviously, it has to go through the legislative process step by step. There are a few issues we will want to raise in parliamentary committee, but all parties need to agree so we can move forward quickly, before Christmas if possible. Many workers would really appreciate this. According to the government's figures, roughly 1.03 million employees are covered by the Canada Labour Code. This affects a lot of people. We are talking about federally regulated industries and businesses, such as those in the air, rail, road, marine, interprovincial and international transportation sectors, as well as banks, the communications sector and postal services.

Apparently, there was an attempt to amend this part of the Canada Labour Code in 1999. However, the change was hijacked by employers who simply had to claim that they were negotiating in good faith. I think that what we have before us today is a true step forward compared to that feeble attempt in 1999, which clearly did not carry much weight.

I am running out of time, but I just want to quickly talk about the positive effects of anti-scab legislation. These measures are essential for civilized bargaining during a dispute. They promote industrial peace. They are the cornerstone for establishing a level playing field between the employer and labour. They also put an end to the situation where there are two classes of workers in Quebec, those who are regulated by Quebec or in the private sector and those who are federally regulated. We are sure that all of this will go quickly, but we know that the parliamentary process can be long sometimes. We just hope everything will go well.

In closing, I want to note something said by Nina Laflamme, union representative at the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who represents the longshore workers at the Port de Québec. She said that when this bill is adopted, we will be able to bargain on an equal footing.

I think that is a rather strong statement that makes sense because without this legislation and these anti-scab measures, unions and workers cannot effectively bargain on an equal footing. This has been a real problem for many years at the federal level. We applaud the introduction of this bill and we will obviously vote in favour of it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleague's speech. She raised a number of points that will have to be discussed in greater detail at committee. I do have a question about the 18-month delay that everyone has been talking about.

I, too, asked why the 18-month wait before coming into force. It seems that it is a matter of expertise and that the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs the time. We do not have as much experience as Quebec or British Columbia.

Does my colleague agree that it will take a certain amount of negotiating expertise before the legislation is implemented?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee will obviously be able to ask officials questions about that expertise and the 18-month delay. Is it necessary to wait that long?

We have talked about the law in Quebec and the law in British Columbia. I think the federal government has quite a few tools in its toolbox to follow their lead and know a little about how to operate once the legislation takes effect. It took so long to introduce this bill that I cannot believe they did not look at how things are done. I am confident that we might be able to shorten this time frame so that the legislation comes into force more quickly.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, like British Columbia, where I live, Quebec has had similar legislation for a long time.

Can the member tell us a little bit more about the impact this law would have on people?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking her question in French. That is always appreciated.

I think that we have seen many examples of lockouts and strikes in Quebec where the workers were not federally regulated. When there are no replacement workers being brought in during a labour dispute, the workers and the unions have a little more room to negotiate. As Nina Laflamme said, it puts workers on an equal playing field with the employer. I think that is extremely important.

Obviously, this bill does not resolve all of the issues. Negotiations can take a long time. We are seeing that right now with the Front commun in Quebec. Sometimes it takes a long time to come to an agreement, but having scabs involved only complicates things.

I think that, since 1977, Quebec has been able to prove just how important it is to have this type of legislation.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given that my colleague is from Quebec, could she expand on the legislation that Quebec already has? Does she feel this would improve it, or would she still like to see other improvements in the legislation that has been put forward?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from what I understand of this legislation, it is quite good. There might even be some progress. That makes sense. As my colleague said earlier, Quebec forged ahead in 1977 when it passed similar legislation. Of course, if there are improvements that could be made here, we can always learn from that piece of legislation, even in 2023, and come up with something worthwhile.

It is always important to have this process of questioning experts in committee. It gives us the opportunity to see if those who are knowledgeable and have the expertise want to add anything to the bill or take anything out. I think that is important. I may not be an expert on the subject, but the experts will certainly be able to guide us at this stage of the study. The little bits we have seen so far are mostly about time frames.

As I was saying, I think we may have acquired all the tools we need to be able to move forward in a shorter time frame than the proposed 18 months prior to royal assent.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville have already said, this legislation has been in force in Quebec for quite some time. It has become part of Quebec's social mores. The Bloc Québécois is closely attuned to Quebec's social mores, which is why we applaud this bill.

Does my colleague have any idea why the House of Commons has refused for so long, 11 times, to pass this legislation? Do Canada's social mores oppose this kind of worker and labour relations protection?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that this great Canada, which is so different from Quebec, may be resistant to this, either for unknown reasons or for the reasons my colleague before me mentioned.

However, I think it is important to move forward and pass this kind of bill immediately. Parliament could have done so as far back as 1990, when our colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel first introduced such legislation.

We certainly had to negotiate in order to convince the government of the importance of such a bill. I am pleased that we have reached this point we are at today. It took time, however.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Canada Post Corporation.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak in this House.

The purpose of Bill C‑58 is to support free and fair collective bargaining. If passed, it will help restore and maintain the balance of power between unions and employers during strikes or lockouts. According to the unions, employers are in a position of strength in labour disputes. We therefore need to ensure that each side can have equal strength when they go to the bargaining table.

Workers have rights. I think that everyone agrees on that. They have the right to organize, to bargain collectively and to go on strike. Striking is the tool they use to put pressure on the employer, but when they go on strike, they have to make sacrifices. They sacrifice their pay, their benefits, their day-to-day security.

I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Labrador, who is a long-time friend and colleague, with whom I sit on the natural resources committee.

With regard to employers, the sacrifices they make during a lockout are not always comparable to those of striking workers. Before introducing Bill C‑58, we did our job. Among other things, we held consultations with all stakeholders, including employers and unions. The unions told us about the shift in the balance of power during a strike or lockout. Restoring balance is a key element for them.

According to what the unions we met with told us, employers always have the upper hand in the negotiations because they have a lot more financial power than the workers. They explained to us that when employers use replacement workers, it creates an even greater imbalance. It weakens the workers' main pressure tactic, which is to deprive the company of its workforce.

Some have even argued that employers could use the replacement workers to avoid making compromises. For unions, this shift in the balance of power makes the bargaining process more difficult and makes strikes and lockouts last even longer

Workers who are not being paid do not feel as though they are on a level playing field with their employer, who has the means to pay workers to keep the business running. Unions feel as though both sides are not equally motivated to negotiate and come to an agreement. Employees do not think it is fair or equitable when an employer replaces a worker who is on strike. That can also impact what is happening at the bargaining table and have a very negative impact on labour relations. What is more, it increases the risk of violence on the picket lines. We have often seen that in the past. Workers get frustrated and tensions rise. It puts everyone's safety at risk, including that of replacement workers.

What the unions are telling us is the truth. These things have happened. Take, for example, the lockout of unionized employees at the Co-op Refinery in Regina in 2019. The company spent millions of dollars building a camp that it filled with scabs from outside the province. It had so much financial power that it was able to bring replacement workers in by helicopter so that they could get across the picket lines.

The company hoped that the unionized workers who were locked out would give up their pensions. The conflict lasted 200 days and was marked by blockades, arrests and even a bomb threat. Is there a better example to illustrate how imbalanced the power relationship between unions and employers can sometimes be and how much damage that can cause?

The point is clear: Resorting to replacement workers diverts attention away from the bargaining table. It prolongs disputes, and it can poison workplaces for years, if not decades.

We are banning the use of replacement workers because we believe in balanced collective bargaining, free and fair collective bargaining. How would Bill C-58 restore that balance?

This bill would encourage unions and employers to resolve their differences as they should—together, on an equal footing at the bargaining table. In other words, it brings the focus back to the bargaining table. That is where this has to happen, because that is where the best deals are made. We are going to do this by ensuring that employers can no longer get others to do the work of striking or locked out workers. I am talking about employees and managers hired after notice to bargain has been served. Contractors, regardless of when they were hired, would also be prohibited from doing the work of striking or locked out employees.

Now, as in all things, there are exceptions. Employers could use replacement workers to prevent threats to life, health or safety; to prevent destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or to prevent serious environmental damage affecting the property or premises. Any violation of the rules would be considered an unfair labour practice under the Canada Labour Code.

I will spare the House the details of the complaint process, but it should be noted that it would be handled by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB.

Bill C‑58 also provides for improvements to the process for the maintenance of activities. To prevent serious danger to the public, employers and unions should agree at the beginning of the bargaining process on what activities are to be maintained during a strike or lockout. The parties will have to come to an agreement within 15 days of the start of the negotiations, before they can issue 72-hour notices of their intention to strike or impose a lockout. If there is no agreement, it will be up to the CIRB to make a decision within 90 days. If no agreement or decision can be reached, there will be no strike or lockout.

I talked about what the unions told us during our consultations. As I mentioned, however, we consulted all the parties involved. We reached this point today because we worked in a spirit of tripartite collaboration. Together, the government, the unions and employers all sat down at the same table. We had open, honest and direct discussions. We worked freely and fairly, which is exactly what we want for the future of labour relations in Canada.

Bill C‑58 will unquestionably improve labour relations, protect the right of workers to strike, limit collective bargaining interruptions and ensure greater stability for Canadians during disputes in federally regulated industries.

Bill C-58 will lead to free and fair collective bargaining at all times.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to start by pointing out that this member and all his Liberal colleagues voted, twice, against legislation to prevent replacement workers, in 2016 and against in 2019.

I would like to know why the bill does not apply to heavily subsidized projects, like Stellantis, which is going to bring in 1,500 or 1,600 scab labourers from Asia. That is one question.

I heard the member mention that critical services would get exempted, such as pharmaceutical products, air ambulances and things like that. I have had people in the aviation industry point out to me, and I know they have studied it a lot, that things like firefighting, delivery by air of pharmaceuticals and air ambulances are threatened by this legislation.

Could the member provide the House with the clauses in that bill that would exempt those aspects of the aviation industry from this legislation?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the best deals are done at the negotiating table between the parties, the employer and the union.

Second, I am fully for foreign direct investment in this country. I am fully for Volkswagen, Stellantis, Toyota and Honda, and any other entity in the automobile sector, in this example, to come and invest here. If those entities need to bring in workers with specialized technology so that Canadians can have jobs, that is a win for our country, our communities and Canadian families.

Foreign direct investment in every part of our economy, whether it is Ferrero Rocher from Italy, Toyota or any company that is here in Canada, operating from abroad, General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, all these companies employ literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We want them to come here and invest in Canada. We will partner with industry and labour, unlike the party on the opposite side.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said earlier, the Bloc Québécois introduced a similar bill in 1990 and reintroduced it 10 times. What is rather odd is that, every time the Liberals were in power they voted against the bill, and every time they were in opposition they voted in favour of it. This leaves the impression that they are anti-union.

There is a provision in the bill that once again gives the impression that they are anti-union, specifically, the one that says the bill will only come into force a year and a half after it receives royal assent. This means that, after the work of Parliament here and the study by the Senate, there will still be a waiting period of a year and half. As a result, an election will very likely be called before workers are given these basic rights.

Does my colleague not think that a year and a half is unreasonable? Why do we need so much time for a legislative measure that is simple to implement and that is easily implemented in most developed countries?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

I would like to say that I have supported unions my entire life.

I have always been pro-labour. Before I entered university, I worked at a pulp and paper mill in British Columbia. They were on strike. I walked a picket line. I walked a picket line for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union at a cannery, where I grew up in Prince Rupert. Private sector unions and their training facilities are located in my riding, along with their headquarters.

I will always be in support of the rights of workers from coast to coast to coast. This is just another example of that. Again, the best deals are done at the negotiating table. We know that. Whether they are carpenters, labourers, electricians or workers in federally regulated sectors of our economy, we know the best deals are done at the negotiating table.

We always need to make sure that the balance is there. We know that 97% or 98% of deals are done even before a strike happens. We understand there are methods of mediation and arbitration. Mediators come in. We all understand it.

This is just another step in the maturity of our Canadian labour market. It is the right thing to do. It is a good thing for Canadian workers. We, on this side of the aisle, will always stand up for Canadian workers, unlike the official opposition.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind members to keep their questions and answers as short as possible so everyone can participate in the debate this evening.

We will resume debate with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill today. It is legislation that I have supported for a very long time. I have advocated for it since my days sitting in the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We know that the Government of Canada believes in collective bargaining. We always have. We have always been very supportive of the union movement, and we are one of the governments that has made significant amendments and has had several pieces of legislation to support workers in Canada since we began our time in office.

We really believe that Canadian workers have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations where replacement workers are not waiting in the wings to take their jobs. We have all seen it. We have seen how this story plays out across Canada when workers have earned the right to strike and have earned the right to collective bargaining, yet when they are out on the picket line, someone else is called in to do their jobs.

Canadian workers need to be able to trust that union jobs are good jobs and that union leaders are able to represent their best interests in fair, honest and balanced negotiations at that bargaining table. That is a fair process. It is why we are introducing this legislation today, which bans the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. I hope this is the beginning of a process of fairness that we will see legislated in provinces and territories across the country.

The union movement has been making this case for generations. For generations, it has been saying that the threat of replacement workers tips the bargaining table balance in the employer's favour. We have seen that many times over and over again. We think its members are right, and we agree with the statements they are making. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of the true collective bargaining process, which has been legally binding in Canada for many decades.

We are trying to level the playing field, and level it in a way that supports unions and the rights that they have fought for and have won over many decades in Canada. This legislation is so important for Canadian workers because, when contract negotiations drag on and consistently reach a stalemate, workers are ultimately faced with a decision between two choices. They can either take the less-than-satisfactory employer offer, or they can go on strike. Those are the only options they have. They certainly feel that it is not always a fair process.

Making a decision to go on strike is not an easy one. No unionized workers vote to walk the picket line without weighing the decision and its implications carefully. It is invariably a money-losing proposition, at least in the short term, for all of them. It hurts their families financially, and hurts them and their families psychologically. Sometimes withdrawing labour is the workers' only way, the last case scenario, to exert the pressure they need to get the deal they deserve and have worked for.

I have walked the picket line with unionized workers many times in my political career simply because I believed in what they were doing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but we are having some interpretation problems.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia raised this issue.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There is no interpretation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are hearing that the audio is not as good as it should be.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a House of Commons-issued headset, so it should be working. Maybe I could continue, and if there is a problem, you can let me know.

During the time I have been serving people across Labrador, in particular, and across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I have continuously—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are still not getting the interpretation. I will confer with the Table for a second. I do apologize.

The problem we are running into is the headset. Unfortunately, for interpretation, it does not sound as good.

We will have to go to the next speaker. I will confer with the Table to see if we can allow the hon. member to complete her speech. The hon. member only got about halfway through before there was a problem with interpretation. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to rectify the problem so the hon. member will be able to finish.

I apologize. I guess that is the fun part of being virtual.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your reserving the time for me.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

It is always a privilege to stand in the House to speak on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today, I rise to speak to the government's legislation, Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. The bill has two main elements. First, it would affect the use of replacement workers only in those workplaces that fall under federal regulation. To be clear, this is not for federal public sector workers. Second, the bill would amend the maintenance of activities process. Again, to be clear, this is not for federal public sector workers. This is only for companies that fall within federal regulation.

If this legislation is so fantastic for workers, as the labour minister and other Liberal members say, it is extremely curious that the Liberals did not implement it into the contracts it negotiated just recently in the federal public sector. The Liberals plan to enforce legislation for the private sector that they themselves will not be held to. The golden rule of doing unto others as one would have them do unto oneself does not exist for the NDP-Liberal government.

One of the most interesting parts of this legislation is that, if it were to pass through the House of Commons and the Senate, and receive royal assent, it would not come into effect until after the next election. Here we have another example of the Liberal government promising sunny ways now and pushing off the effects its policies would have until after an election.

One of the great privileges of serving as the shadow minister for employment and workforce development is the number of meetings and conversations I have with workers, including unionized workers. I have talked with many workers from many different industries across many provinces in the country, in Yukon, and in my community.

Most workers whom I have talked to have top priorities in their concerns with tax increases, inflation and interest rates eating away at their paycheques. These are the top issues they bring up with me. I have had workers talk to me about concerns with stable EI programs, access to training, temporary foreign workers, better access to professional testing, and the ability for people working in the trades to expense items such as tools.

I was recently speaking to a young man who is a construction worker who told me that he has a place to sleep, but it is not a home. Even though he has a good job, he does not feel like he will ever own a home. We know it now takes 25 years to save for a home in Canada. There are so many good jobs that either have left the country or have evaporated, but the NDP-Liberal government does not want to talk about that.

Let us look at the forestry sector. Thousands of good-paying jobs have been lost in my home province of British Columbia alone. These were good-paying jobs supporting families. It is not like there was less of a need for softwood lumber or pulp, but due to the Liberal government's not negotiating a softwood lumber agreement with the U.S., a lack of business confidence and an unfriendly business regime created by the government, the jobs have gone south of the border. The Prime Minister promised a new softwood lumber agreement within 100 days of his first election in 2015. We are now thousands of days past this, three U.S. presidents later and no closer to that agreement.

Mills have shut and thousands of jobs have been lost in B.C. alone. This is another broken promise. Two hundred workers whose livelihoods supported their families in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country lost their jobs when the mill closed. The Liberals were not successful in negotiating a softwood lumber section into CUSMA either. They left it up to negotiating a separate agreement, and this has not happened.

In the energy sector, over $100 billion in investments evaporated with project cancellations under the NDP-Liberal government, and tens of thousands of jobs have either been lost, or there were lost opportunities. Many cited Canada's red-tape regulatory regime as a major barrier. There used to be direct flights to Fort Mac from Kelowna International Airport, with families living in Kelowna or Lake Country. When there were massive layoffs in the energy sector early in the Liberal government's time, the flights stopped.

Around this time, I recall speaking to a family where the husband had a good job working for an oil and gas company, and his company laid off a lot of its workforce. The only work he could find at the time was cutting lawns, and he and his wife had to make the tough family decision for the wife to go back to work, even though, with two young children, she did not want to. Even with them both working, they were making less than his one previous job in the energy sector. She was also no longer able to volunteer at the kids' school, and it created a lot of coordinating challenges with activities in the family. These are the tough decisions parents make every day. If the government were truly concerned about workers, as it says it is, it should focus on making sure there is investment in Canada and removing red tape and bureaucracy. It should stop stifling business and focus on creating well-paying jobs.

The anti-energy Prime Minister and radical activist environment minister have shrunk Canada’s energy workforce while promising a “just transition” that cannot guarantee workers the same pay or benefits. The government’s own document on the just transition refers to affecting 2.7 million workers' jobs within the energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture sectors. Let us not forget the anti-energy industry bill, Bill C-69, parts of which have now been deemed unconstitutional.

The Prime Minister said there is no business case for LNG, yet the U.S. has become a major exporter in the world in just a few years. This is another lost opportunity for Canadian workers. If the NDP-Liberal government is so concerned about replacement workers, why did it seemingly negotiate an agreement in Windsor, Ontario, which will include foreign replacement workers? The Liberals originally called this disinformation, but we now know and have confirmation from the very company hiring the workers that at least 900 taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers from South Korea would be brought in to work on that plant, which would be subsidized by 15 billion taxpayer dollars.

The executive director of Canada’s Building Trades Unions has called the decision to allow foreign replacement workers to replace Canadian jobs at the EV battery manufacturing facility in Windsor “a slap in the face” and an “insult to Canadian taxpayers.” We now know that the Northvolt project in Quebec will bring in taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers as well.

The government needs to make public copies of all contracts, memorandums of understanding or any other agreement between any minister, department, agency or Crown corporation of the Government of Canada, as well as all companies it has announced tax breaks and subsidies to in relation to battery production. When the Liberals put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, the jobs those subsidies pay for should go to Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers. Common-sense Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to release the documents for all these taxpayer-funded battery plants, so Canadians can see if the Liberal government did anything to secure guarantees for Canadian workers.

Let us talk about another recent broken promise of the Liberal government, with the announcement that it will now be raising EI premiums on every paycheque of workers in Canada in 2024. Just seven months ago, in budget 2023, it said that premiums would not be increased. The government’s inflationary deficits have crushed the purchasing power of workers' paycheques. Inflation increases the costs of basic necessities, and food inflation has been even higher. Despite the finance minister’s victory statement in September, inflation is still high; the Prime Minister's promise of bringing down food costs by Thanksgiving has come and gone. We know there is a record number of two million Canadians using a food bank each month. Rents have doubled, and taxes such as the carbon tax keep increasing. Families of all generations are being squeezed; they are on the edge of not being able to fulfill their financial commitments and pay their bills.

After eight years, inflation and interest rates at generational highs are impacting workers and their families everywhere they turn. Only a Conservative government will focus on making life more affordable and removing red tape and bureaucracy so Canadians can bring home powerful paycheques once again.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my colleague a question. I listened very attentively as she spoke on Bill C-58. We all know that good deals happen at the bargaining table. That is where workers have the opportunity to get the powerful leverage they need to ensure they get fair wages, fair benefits and job security. These are all the things they and their families need and depend upon. The fact that companies can bring in replacement workers while they are on strike has always been a disadvantage for workers.

Is my hon. colleague prepared to support Bill C-58 and support workers in Canada?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do we know what is not a good deal? It is 200 people in my community losing their jobs when a mill closed or the worker I talked about who worked in the energy sector and lost his job because of the policies of the Liberal government. His wife had to go back to work. As I mentioned in my intervention, both of their wages together did not even come close to what he was making himself working in the energy sector.

Those are the types of tough decisions that are affecting families every day. Those are the tough situations that have played out in households across this country because of policies that the government has implemented.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the ban on replacement workers to ensure balanced collective agreement negotiations has been part of Quebeckers' DNA for decades.

I know that the Conservatives think they are in the middle of an election campaign, but I feel uneasy. I listened to my colleague's speech and it was interesting. We talked about the carbon tax and battery plants. The Liberal member asked her a clear question about whether the member will support the principle that replacement workers should be banned to ensure balanced collective agreement negotiations. We received a non-answer. The Conservatives are uncomfortable. They do not want to answer to avoid implying that they are not on the workers' side.

I would like a clear answer from the Conservatives. Do they support the principle of the bill to ban replacement workers, yes or no?

It is either yes or no. I would like a real answer.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting that the member is from Quebec. We know that the Northvolt project in Quebec will be bringing in hundreds of taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers to fill jobs, taking jobs away from workers in Quebec. There needs to be more clarity on taxpayer-funded foreign workers who will be funded through the hard-working people of Canada. We are asking for the government to disclose what those contracts are. We need to see what is in them, so we can see how this is affecting workers. Is it written into the contracts that foreign replacement workers are acceptable for those companies that are accepting all this taxpayer money?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the third time is the charm, because the hon. member did not actually answer the questions of my last two colleagues. I too listened to the hon. member's speech. She did not really speak a lot about the bill in question. Yes, the cost of living is rising but, again, this bill will help ensure that workers have the ability and the power to negotiate as equals with their employers.

Again, will this member and will the Conservative members of the House support this bill and support workers' rights when dealing with potential replacement workers?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the NDP-Liberal government always wants to talk about anything other than the fact that people cannot afford to pay for basic necessities. We have nurses and construction workers who are living in their cars in British Columbia. We know that this is across the country. We know that there are tent cities across this country, because people cannot afford the basic necessities they need to live. Reports came out just this morning about how close seniors are to being homeless.

The government has created this problem with high inflation, which has also created high interest rates. This is creating higher mortgage payments for people, putting them on the edge and out of their homes. The government should be focusing on policies and legislation that can actually stop what is creating this situation, where people cannot even afford basic necessities in this country.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that improving labour relations should be the ultimate goal of any government. It is better for workers, employers, the economy and all Canadians. However, the current labour climate suggests that we are moving in another direction. Across the country, we are seeing more labour strife than we have at any other time in recent history.

The strife is undoubtedly being fuelled by the spiralling cost of living crisis in this country, which is a direct result of the NDP-Liberal government's inflationary deficits and taxes. The costly coalition has made life more difficult for hard-working Canadians, and paycheques are not going nearly as far as they once were.

We know the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything. Food prices have gone up year after year, housing costs have doubled and mortgages have gone up by 150% since the Liberals took office. There are reports indicating that over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke, which is simply outrageous. Working Canadians across this country are struggling to put food on their tables and to keep a roof over their heads. That is unacceptable, but it is the devastating reality after eight years of the Liberal government, which continues to be propped up by its NDP friends. They have failed Canadian workers and broken the unspoken promise that if one gets a job and works hard, one will be able to pay one's bills and build a better life.

That is the climate in which the Liberals have tabled this bill. As we consider Bill C-58, it is critical that we do so with a view to finding balance. Governments should never encourage labour disruption or give either side in a dispute an uneven advantage, because there are very serious implications for all Canadians when labour is disrupted. This is particularly true when we consider the industries and the sectors that are federally regulated.

Whether it is our rail system, our ports, our telecommunication networks or air travel, labour disruptions in these critical industries have a serious cost for businesses. Beyond that, they can also have a potentially devastating impact on everyday Canadians. That downstream impact should not be cast aside in this debate, and it cannot be ignored. It raises questions about what happens when medicine cannot get to the end destination on store shelves and, ultimately, is not there when Canadians need it.

What happens if telecommunication services are down? How does a family member check in on loved ones? What impact would this have on payment processing? Would there be Canadians unable to access basic necessities? If fresh food in transportation spoils, what is the cost to consumers? These questions raise just a few examples of what impact a strike could have on Canadians. Ultimately, a strike that impacts our supply chains, such as those in our ports or railways, will always have a ripple effect beyond the employer and worker.

It will also impact small businesses that depend on the efficient flow of our supply chains. The longer a strike lasts, the greater the harm it will cause. For small businesses, it is a situation that is generally well beyond their control. This is certainly true for farmers, who need to get their commodities to market. In my province of Saskatchewan, which is a landlocked province, a disruption in any part of the supply chain network is seriously detrimental.

It is critical that, in considering this legislation, we understand the potential impact on farmers and their operations. Farmers certainly cannot afford to take any more hits. They are already some of the hardest hit by the NDP-Liberal coalition's failed policies. Farmers I have spoken to certainly feel that it is intentional and that the government has no regard for their industry or their contributions to our country. Failed policies such as the Liberal carbon tax are putting the viability of farm businesses in jeopardy. There is also, of course, the Senate; so-called independent senators are now doing the government's bidding by dragging their feet on Bill C-234. Ensuring the viability of farm operations is critical to the industry, as well as to an affordable and dependable food supply.

I recently had a farmer in my office who shared with me that a single day of rail disruption delayed his shipment by a matter of weeks, which, of course, directly impacted the cash flow of his operations. That is because a single day of disruption never equates to a single day of backlog. This brings to mind this past summer's port strike in Vancouver, which created a massive bottleneck in our supply chain infrastructure. The job action in Vancouver lasted weeks, and now all these months later, the port is still working to clear the backlog.

Let me be clear that Canadian workers, without question, have the right to collective bargaining and striking. Striking should be the last resort, and it should not be incentivized. The best outcome for all parties is coming to an agreement at the bargaining table. That is why it is critical that government foster a level playing field for unions and businesses so that ultimately government is helping only to foster better labour relations. Government should not intervene to tip the scales.

Other jurisdictions that have implemented similar bans have seen an increase in job actions, which should be cause for warning. It is not clear what lessons from those jurisdictions are being applied in this legislation, and it is not clear that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance between labour and employers. In fact, the bill contains a lot of ambiguity that requires clarification. This is, of course, a pattern with the Liberal government, which has a tendency to introduce what it has coined as “framework legislation”.

There is another matter of great curiosity. The bill would impose a ban on replacement workers for federally regulated industries, but it would not apply to the public service. This policy decision certainly raises questions. If the Liberals have determined through their consultations and analysis that what they are proposing is positive for labour relations, then it would make sense to apply it to themselves, but they deliberately chose to exclude the federal government and the public service from the scope of this legislation. I think industry deserves clarity from the labour minister on this particular policy decision.

In another example of “do as I say and not as I do”, the Liberal government seems to villainize replacement workers through this legislation while at the same time funding foreign replacement workers. Last week, we learned that the Stellantis battery plant is reportedly hiring 1,600 foreign workers despite receiving $15 billion in subsidies from the NDP-Liberal coalition. This is not in the interests of our Canadian workers, and it certainly is not fair to them or Canadian taxpayers. Canadian taxpayer subsidies should be going to support Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers.

We do not even fully understand the extent of the government's budgeted contract negotiations, because not only does the story keep changing on that side of the House, from claiming disinformation to claiming one worker and then a handful, but the Liberals are deliberately choosing to keep the contracts hidden. If it is such great news for Canadian workers, why the secrecy? What are they trying to hide?

Well, we know now that the Northvolt plant will be utilizing taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers, which also calls into question whether Volkswagen will. Canadian taxpayers and tradespeople deserve answers. The Prime Minister must confirm what provisions were negotiated to secure good, long-term jobs for Canadians, because at the end of the day, that is what Canadians workers want. They want to work. They want Canadian businesses and industries to succeed so they have job security. They want businesses to continue to invest and create jobs in Canada that will allow them to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table. They want a guarantee that they can build a life for themselves.

As I said at the outset, improving labour relations should be the government's goal. Having healthy and good labour relations is what is best for workers, employers, the economy and ultimately all Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Conservative colleague who spoke prior to the member was asked three times whether or not the Conservatives would vote in favour of the bill. When the member spoke, she debated whether Conservatives would be supporting it. I think they should have learned their lesson after how they treated the Ukraine-Canada free trade deal. They were basically silent on it the entire time, would not make a commitment and then suddenly started voting the way they did last week, to the surprise of the entire country.

I am wondering if the member would like to tell the House and Canadians whether she will be voting in favour of this bill or against it. Will we see a repeat of what we saw on other issues?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the petty, gut-wrenching politics the Liberals partake in. All they do is deflect and divide. That is what they are good at.

If anybody listened to my speech, I posed a lot of questions, because that is what debate is for. Debate is for hearing different views, especially from different representatives across the country, to come to a formulated, educated solution or end goal.

I have asked how this bill is going to affect everyday Canadians. That is my question.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member started her speech by talking about the importance of improving labour relations as a priority of the government. I am curious if the member could please share the ways the leader of the Conservative Party has shown this priority. Was it when he passed laws to make it harder for unions to win better pay for workers? Was it when he voted against establishing a minimum wage, twice? Was it when he made it harder to get a pension, delaying the retirement age to 67? Was it when he made CEOs and rich investors richer by giving away $55 billion in tax cuts to big corporations while cutting services?

Which is it? Is the Conservative Party in support of labour relations or lining the pockets of its rich friends?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we can see the NDP spinning its partisan talking points.

I am here thoughtfully discussing, and asking questions and seeking answers on Bill C-58. I asked questions throughout my remarks today about how this piece of legislation is going to affect everyday Canadians.

It is unfortunate to see the NDP marrying and partnering with the Liberals and being invited to sit next to them.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at least it has become clear that the member will probably not support the bill. I am surprised because the Conservatives normally try to find a carbon tax in bills to avoid supporting them, but there is no such tax in this one. The member is using the fact that some plants will use temporary foreign workers to deny workers fundamental rights and calling that a defeat. These foreign workers in Quebec obviously fall under Quebec jurisdiction.

Does my colleague agree that all temporary foreign workers, including workers who live here in Canada, should have decent working conditions and that, for all these workers, replacement workers should be banned?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if he had listened to my speech, I talked about what is contributing to the cost of living crisis, which is also contributing to why labour is the way it is today. Canadians are literally living paycheque to paycheque. Many Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke.

Canadians want to make sure there are jobs for Canadians and that what the government is doing in the contracts it is negotiating, to look at Stellantis, for example, ensures their jobs are at the forefront and are going to be protected. It looks like the government will not release the details of the contracts, so we do not know if the Liberals care about protecting Canadians' jobs.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in the member's riding, the government's track record is particularly horrific given the jobs it has killed through its attack on resource industries.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the NDP tail suddenly wagging the Liberal dog, forcing a bill onto the House that the Liberals twice voted against when raised as opposition private members' bills. Does she have any comment on the credibility the government has when it comes to standing up for workers?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the credibility they have is zero. We see this with my private member's bill, Bill C-318. They voted against it and then they scooped it up and put it in the fall economic statement. It just proves that the Liberals are out of touch and out of ideas and that it is time for a Conservative government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow the member for Labrador to finish her speech and Q and A, which were interrupted due to technical challenges.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House of Commons for their patience today. When technology works, it is great, and when it does not, we end up with problems like this.

It is very important that I have the opportunity to finish my thoughts on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. This legislation is so important for Canadian workers.

When contract negotiations are dragging on and, as we have all seen, have reached a stalemate, workers are ultimately faced with two decisions: they take the offer on the table, whether it is acceptable or not, or they go on strike. I have been on picket lines many times across my own riding, with Vale workers, Department of National Defence workers and steelworkers in Labrador West, Labrador City and Wabush. Many have had to walk the picket lines over and over, while others were called in to do their jobs. It not only affects the financial abilities within their families but affects them psychologically. It has a tremendous impact on all aspects of their lives.

This is something unions have been asking for for a long time. When people are out there on the picket lines supporting these workers, they feel a deep sense of frustration as they watch other people take their jobs. They are only there because they were not able to solidify the rights and rewards they felt entitled to.

Collective bargaining is hard work. We all know that. We all know that it takes time and very innovative ideas. It can be very tense. It can be messy. The minister said that when he was introducing this bill.

We know that workers want to work. They want to work for fair pay and fair benefits. They do not want to walk picket lines. That is always the last resort. We can never forget that.

We also know that labour instability means instability right across our supply chains. It has a ripple effect on the economy. It affects all of us in Canada. Anytime we can avoid this and allow for the collective bargaining process to work so workers can get good, solid agreements between unions and employers, it really benefits all Canadians. Anytime we can have these disputes settled and not prolonged, it is in the best interests of workers, their families and the overall economy in Canada.

I know a number of Conservatives asked whether members had ever been on a picket line. I have been on many, because I have supported unionized workers all my life. I really believe they have worked hard to earn the rights and benefits they have and that they should be able to exercise them without the cost of losing their jobs or having others take their jobs.

One of the largest protester rallies I was ever involved in was when a Conservative government withdrew search and rescue services from Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only were employees laid off but the doors were closed in a province that has thousands of kilometres of seaway and is so dependent on search and rescue and the marine search and rescue centre. The Conservative government under Stephen Harper cancelled that particular program, and the doors at the search and rescue centres were closed and locked, putting workers out in the streets.

I know what it is like. I know how these workers are impacted. I have seen it first-hand. This legislation is there to protect workers, protect their jobs and allow for them to have the full collective bargaining rights they have worked hard to secure in settlements over decades in Canada.

I will be supporting this legislation, and I hope all my colleagues in the House of Commons will support it as well.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard my hon. colleague mention the Canadian Coast Guard. I know folks in the area where she grew up would like an update on whether the people of southern Labrador are going to get the Coast Guard search and rescue centre they are asking for.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would question the relevance of that one to the bill, but perhaps the hon. member wants to answer it.

The hon. member for Labrador.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the marine search and rescue centre in St. John's that Stephen Harper and the Conservative government closed. We reopened it after we came to power in 2015.

Have we made upgrades in Labrador? Yes, and I am going to be very happy to talk about all of those very soon.

What I want to talk about today is workers and the rights of workers in the union movement. The member opposite just stood, but his government voted against wage increases for workers and fair benefits. It also tried to increase the retirement age for seniors in this country from 65 to 67.

It does not sound like a government that supported workers in any unionized movement in this country, so what I would like to know from the members opposite is whether Conservatives are prepared to support this legislation in the same way we are.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of us have heard from constituents who are quite concerned about the cost of living increase and how hard it is for folks. She mentioned in her speech the necessity to ensure that workers have an ability to negotiate on an equal footing with their employers to have better wages. One of my concerns is the time that it takes to pass this legislation and that within the legislation the Liberals have put in an 18-month delay before implementation.

I want to ask the member why she thinks this is justified, considering people are struggling now and workers need the supports in Bill C-58 to ensure they have equal rights to that of their employers.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, is important to realize that Canadian workers need to trust that the unions are there and can do the best job possible to represent their best interests, but more importantly they need to know that they have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations where they do not have replacement workers waiting in the wings to do their jobs.

One of the things I want to flag for my colleague here is that this particular legislation was done in conversation with employers, workers, indigenous partners and the Canadian public. There were 71 submissions and a lot of round table discussions. As a result, we are here today to support legislation that can be rolled out in a way that is responsive to the needs of all who were able to participate in this process.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was one of the commitments that the Liberal Party made in the last election. Of course, it is always good to be able to, in a minority Parliament like this, have other players who are willing to look for progressive ideas and policies as well.

I wonder if the member wants to talk about how important that was for workers in Canada, how they demonstrated that prior to the election and why, as a result, we put it into our campaign commitment.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this was a huge issue in the Liberal platform going into the last election. We made a commitment to Canadians that we would honour and support workers, and that we would ensure that the focus was at the bargaining table and not at the picket lines.

This is allowing us to do that, to find the stability that workers need, and we did it in partnership with them. That is why we believe that this is the most transformative legislation in many decades in terms of benefits for workers and unions. We need to ensure that we get it right and we are getting it right with their input.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in Parliament today in favour of Bill C-58, a historic piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that is in support of workers, and in support of their fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively.

Fundamentally, this legislation is about fairness. By banning the use of replacement workers, also known as “scabs”, we are supporting fairness, and the right of workers to exercise their fundamental rights.

Before I go on, I want to make sure I mention I am splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Many may wonder why this legislation is necessary. We know that, historically, there are employers who have done what they can to attack workers and to undermine their rights. We know that scabs are often brought in during lengthy strikes, and it is not about providing essential services or other excuses that employers might use. It is about breaking workers. It is about breaking unions. We are all worse off for it.

This legislation matters in my riding. I am proud to be from northern Manitoba. I am proud to be from Thompson, a working-class town, a mining town and a union town. I am proud to have been a union member before I got into politics. I am proud to represent communities like The Pas, Flin Flon, Churchill, Norway House and others where workers have a history of standing up and fighting back.

Manitoba has a long history of labour activism. We all know the general strike of 1919 where there was a violent repression against workers fighting for their rights. There have been many strikes and walkouts in the history of our province here in northern Manitoba. We know that workers have stood up with everything they had to fight for better wages, for safety in their workplaces, and for support for our communities and our region. They have fought for all of us.

Let us be clear about the fact that anti-scab legislation is a victory for working people everywhere. I am proud to be in the NDP, a political party that supports workers. We are part of a movement that was created, of course, in large part by workers and organized labour. We, in the NDP, are unequivocal in our support of workers and workers' rights, rather than the billionaire-class, corporate coalition the Liberals and Conservatives always fight for.

Workers, as represented by organized labour, have made this call for anti-scab legislation for years, and the NDP has been there to support them every step of the way. Eight times in 15 years the NDP has introduced anti-scab legislation. We know that the B.C. NDP government brought in anti-scab legislation years ago. I also acknowledge that Quebec has had anti-scab legislation for a long time. I hope the newly elected NDP government in Manitoba brings anti-scab legislation into force as well.

At the federal level, we must acknowledge that this is a historic moment. This is historic legislation. It feels like this time, the Liberals will finally pause their corporate, anti-worker coalition with the Conservatives for a brief enough time to pass this vital piece of legislation. It is legislation that, even through the negotiations with the Liberals, they had to be pulled kicking and screaming toward the finish line. Finally, we have it in sight.

What workers are used to from the Liberals and Conservatives is lip service and not a whole lot else. I, along with my colleagues, hope that we can strike down the 18-month implementation period that is far too long for Canadian workers.

We know that when not one billionaire tax cheat has been punished for parking their money in offshore tax havens, and when billionaires are given a free ride time and time again, we all see the power imbalance in this country for what it is. We see it when the Liberals let 123 corporations avoid paying $30 billion in taxes, all while patting themselves on the back as the defenders of workers that they pretend to be.

We see it in the anti-worker, back-to-work legislation that both Liberals and Conservatives have consistently brought in and supported when workers collectively fight for their rights, like with postal workers, dock workers, Air Canada workers, PSAC workers and UFCW workers. Neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the official opposition has seen a strike they are uncomfortable quashing. We now have the power to change that.

At this point, it is pretty clear that workers have seen a lot from the federal government that is anti-worker. They have seen billion-dollar contracts with Amazon, while workers rely on food banks. They have seen how hard it is to afford rent or buy a home when billionaires are making record profits.

It is also very important that we remind Canadians of the record of the Conservative Party and the leader of the official opposition who has reshaped himself into a so-called champion for workers, but when they look at his record, he is somebody who has made clear that he hates workers and the defence of workers' rights with the same zeal as the Prime Minister. In fact, when the leader of the official opposition was in government, he cut billions of dollars from health care that we all rely on, he cut EI benefits and he directly attacked workers. He attacked unions. He voted against raising the minimum wage and, of course, we know he supported back-to-work legislation. Simply told, he may talk a big game, but we have seen this before and workers will not buy it.

Because both the Liberals and the Conservatives will try to fool people and they do it any time they need a political boost, out comes the “aw shucks” defence of working people. If we are lucky, some may show up to a picket line, but if either the Liberals or the Conservatives cared for workers, they would not push for trade deals that actively harm them. and it would not have taken the eighth try in 15 years to actually pass anti-scab legislation. It would have happened by now.

I am proud of the work that our federal NDP has done to push the Liberals to bring this piece of legislation forward. We know that this is legislation that would not just lift workers up but would lift Canadians up as well. It is sorely needed to restore the power imbalance between workers and the billionaire class, where workers have been forced to fight for scraps while the ultrarich in this country make record profits. There is hope. I think of workers at a Starbucks in Chicoutimi who just signed their first union card, or workers in Montreal at Amazon working to unionize their workplace. It is time we fixed this power imbalance and it starts with enshrining worker protections, like anti-scab legislation, so that every worker has a voice.

The reality is that billionaires and their enablers in the Liberal Party and Conservative Party are all too happy to quash the power of workers. However, with this legislation, fought for by the NDP, we have made it a bit harder. Any day we make it easier for workers and harder to be a billionaire is a good day for Canadians.

I am going to make a prediction that the Conservatives are going to talk a good talk, as we are hearing in the House with respect to how tough people have it, but I predict that they are not going to support anti-scab legislation which is fundamentally tied to the ability of workers to fight for fairness. We know that from the track record of their leader and we know that from the track record of many MPs who were part of the previous Harper government, which was a dark time for working people in this country.

I can pretty well guarantee that despite some of the verbal pronouncements of support for workers, we certainly will not hear them singing Solidarity Forever or see them standing up to vote for this legislation that would ban the use of replacement workers. The bottom line is that if they really support workers, if they really support their right to organize and their right to bargain collectively, and if they support the labour movement and believe that it is fundamentally tied to bettering the lives of workers and all Canadians, they will vote for this legislation. I hope all parties will do just that.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her interesting speech and for supporting the bill before us. We look forward to seeing what will be adopted in committee and what important elements will be added by members.

My colleague has acknowledged that Quebec has had this type of legislation for a long time. We have expertise in industrial relations.

Does she think that 18 months is a reasonable time frame for the other provinces to develop the same kind of expertise?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think that 18 months is an unacceptable delay. That was clearly said. We can move forward much more quickly than that. Obviously, we need this bill. From Quebec's and British Columbia's experience, we know that it can make a difference for workers. Workers in federally regulated sectors need this support as soon as possible. Eighteen months is an unacceptable delay.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member shares with me my confidence that the new bill would do a better job than those in both British Columbia and Quebec, in that it attempts to address the question that is important in areas where the federal government has jurisdiction of remote work, especially in telecommunications.

I wonder whether she shares the optimism that the bill would help address the use of replacement workers working from home.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a critical point. We know that the legislation is historic in many ways. It has been fought for over the course of many years, but it is also legislation that is very current, recognizing that many workers in particular sectors, and I am thinking of telecommunications and others, are increasingly engaged in remote work and deserve the protections and should have the rights that any other worker does. Importantly, the legislation would look out for remote workers.

I think we all agree, certainly in the NDP, that we need to move ahead with this critical piece of legislation as soon as possible, much faster than the 18-month implementation period. Workers need the legislation now.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois introduced 11 anti-scab bills before the government introduced this one. To give a little background, when the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the dean of the House, introduced his bill in 1990, the Liberals voted overwhelmingly in favour of it, but the Conservatives voted against it. There were also 133 members of the House who abstained from voting, including a few New Democrats. Had the NDP caucus been united at that time, we would have had anti-scab legislation in 1990. It is rather surprising to see that the NDP has not always sided with workers, but I am glad to see that they have changed their position today.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know the details of that situation, but we know that the NDP has introduced this type of bill in the past and has supported anti-scab bills introduced by other parties, including the Bloc Québécois. Our priority was to ensure that this was part of our work in collaboration with the other parties, including the Liberal Party. To us, it is obvious that we need to move as quickly as possible without waiting 18 months for this bill to become a reality because the workers need it now.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑58, which is being studied thanks to the NDP. It is thanks to the efforts of the member for Burnaby South, as well as our critic and deputy leader, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, that we are here debating another anti‑scab bill. This is the eighth time the NDP has introduced such a bill in Parliament, but we know that it will stick this time. For anyone from any party to claim the opposite would be absolutely false. The NDP has been championing this cause for years. Eight times we did not succeed. However, NDP members keep working until we do succeed. This bill is a win for all workers across the country.

I should also point out that we desperately need this NDP bill in the House of Commons. First and foremost, let us look at the gap between CEOs' annual pay and workers' annual pay across the country. Over the past 15 years or so, first under the Conservatives and then under the Liberals, the gap between what CEOs earn and what workers get has doubled. Seventeen years ago, before the Harper regime began, the ratio was 200 to 1, meaning CEOs earned $200 for every dollar a worker earned. Today, after 17 years of this corporate coalition, we see that the gap has doubled. CEOs now earn around 400 times what workers earn.

It is extremely important to have a fair and level playing field for bargaining. That is what this NDP bill does. It ensures that workers who are negotiating in good faith can now improve their situation while doing their job. For example, they can vote in favour of a strike knowing that their employer cannot use scabs to take away their power to get fairer wages, a health plan and a safer, more secure workplace. These are all things that workers are seeking.

Magali Picard, the president of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, said it like it is:

Finally! That is what we feel like saying. We must commend the...government for its courage in resisting the employer lobbies and recognizing all of the hard work that has been done by the NDP, not to mention the unions, including the affiliates of the FTQ, which have constantly exerted pressure over the years so that the governments in place would introduce a bill to protect workers. Too often, unscrupulous employers under federal jurisdiction have taken advantage of the lack of anti-scab legislation to continue operating during labour disputes by hiring scabs. This bill meets our expectations.

Let me repeat what Ms. Picard said: “recognizing all of the hard work that has been done by the NDP”. That is important. That is why the NDP pushed so hard and worked so tirelessly to get this bill introduced. Now, of course, we are going to see to it that the bill is improved, because there are still elements in it that need to be improved.

When we talk about Bill C-58 and the NDP's long battle, over decades, to bring anti-scab legislation, anti-replacement-worker legislation, to the floor of the House of Commons, we have to understand the why of this. I can give no better illustration than just last weekend, when I was back in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby. There are picket lines there that, of course, the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP has visited. The members for Vancouver Kingsway, Vancouver East and Port Moody—Coquitlam, and, in fact, all members of the Lower Mainland caucus of the NDP, have been on the picket lines for the Shaw workers who were locked out by Rogers.

Rogers, with the rubber stamp of the federal Liberal government, took over Shaw cable, a company that worked for a long time with unionized workers. It locked them out immediately because the workers wanted to continue to have their jobs; to continue, in good faith, to negotiate adequate salaries; and to make sure that work was not contracted out and, in that sense, hurting the entire community. The workers expected to see a negotiation in good faith. That is not what Rogers did. Rogers locked them out and immediately hired replacement workers. I have been on the lockout lines, as have my colleagues from the Lower Mainland NDP caucus. We have not seen Liberals there. We have not seen Conservatives there. It has been New Democrats standing up for the workers, the hundreds who have been locked out.

The reality is, in an example like that, in federal jurisdiction, that the use of replacement workers is a benefit to the corporate executives who have decided to take the step. It is not in the interests of the community, of the public, nor even of the company. The executives took the decision out of pure greed.

Eighteen months would be ridiculously long. The NDP is going to change that. However, the reality is that once Bill C-58 is implemented, companies like Rogers would have to act responsibly. They would have to sit down. They would have to negotiate in good faith. They would have to ensure that what they are doing is negotiating an agreement with their workers in good faith and above board.

The bill is something that would level the playing field for workers. We have seen a massive concentration under the Harper regime and under the current government, where corporate executives have basically had all of the power. They have been able to take massive amounts of money overseas, as the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer tells us, $30 billion of taxpayers' money every year. That is money that could be going to seniors, students and families. It is $30 billion every year, as a result of the Harper tax haven treaties, that is taken offshore. Many of the corporate executives are the same ones who want to negotiate in bad faith with their workers and to lock out their workers, as we have seen in the Rogers-Shaw case, where the Shaw workers were locked out and are now seeing replacement workers stealing their jobs.

The reality, and the important thing to note, is that levelling the playing field is in the interests of the entire community, because strikes and lockouts last a much shorter period of time. There are not the prolonged lockouts and strikes, because the use of replacement workers means that corporate executive do have to sit down and negotiate in good faith. They do have to negotiate in the interests of their business. They do need to negotiate in the interests of their community. It changes everything when the playing field is levelled. That is certainly what we have seen in British Columbia and in Quebec. The anti-scab legislation has actually led to fewer labour disputes, because management is finally compelled to actually negotiate in good faith with the workers in their jurisdiction.

I come from the shop floor. I worked in plastic factories. I worked in the Annacis Business Park. I worked in a unionized situation at the Shelburn oil refinery, which is now closed. My life was a working life, and I saw the difference between non-union and union work. The reality is that working people do better when unions are present and laws provide for a level playing field for negotiation. The middle class counts because of organized labour and people working together.

I am hoping the Liberals have finally been convinced to vote for the legislation. I salute that. I understand that the Bloc will be voting for it. That is important too.

Above all, if Conservative members really believe in the middle class, working families and working Canadians, they need to get off the fence and vote for this legislation. I know the member for Carleton is obsessed with the price on carbon. There is nothing about the price on carbon in this bill, so Conservatives can vote “yes” on Bill C-58.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the Conservatives will find some rare excuse to link it to the price on pollution, as we have seen with other pieces of legislation.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will acknowledge the hon. member who just spoke out of turn. I would ask him to wait, because there is more time to ask questions and make comments.

The hon. deputy House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

To be fair, Madam Speaker, I did not even notice it; I am used to a lot of yelling on that side.

The Liberals ran on this idea, as did the NDP. I genuinely believe that, because of the partnership we have with the NDP, we have a better piece of legislation now that Canadians can feel very proud of. Could the member for New Westminster—Burnaby inform the House of what it is like to be an adult in the room?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Other members seem to want to answer that question, but it is not their time to answer. If they want to ask questions, they should stand when it is time.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague and friend that the Liberals ran for 25 years on pharmacare and 20 years on dental care. They never did it. They ran for a decade on anti-scab legislation, but they voted against it when the NDP brought it forward. The difference is that, this time, because of a minority Parliament, New Democrats are forcing the Liberals to do what they said they would do and never do when they hold a majority government.

Yes, we are the adults in the room and the NDP is forcing the Liberals to do the right thing, from which all Canadians will benefit.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member that he had an opportunity to ask a question. If he wishes to continue to participate, he can stand at the appropriate time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impassioned speech. I am used to that from him in the House.

I am going to ask the member a very serious question. He knows as well that the Liberal government previously voted against this same legislation before it was in partnership, as my colleague across the way calls it, with his party, the NDP. They are exposed now as being off to see the wizard together.

Will the member comment on how the Liberals have completely flip-flopped on this in order to buy the support of his party for who knows how long in the House of Commons?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that it was not his turn to answer that either.

I would ask members, in order for the House to continue to function smoothly, that they wait until it is the appropriate time to ask a question, make comments or respond to a question.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thought my colleague was going to congratulate the NDP for yet again forcing government to do the right thing. We saw under the dismal Harper regime how worker rights suffered. The Liberals came into power and did nothing for workers until the time the NDP started forcing them to do things such as dental care, which will help 11,000 of his constituents, anti-scab legislation and the grocery rebate that, again, helped thousands of his constituents. These are all things New Democrats did, not only for our own constituents but for all Canadians.

The Conservatives are welcome for New Democrats doing the work that they refuse to do in the House of Commons, so that thousands of constituents of Conservative MPs can benefit from the NDP working hard on their behalf and on behalf of all Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard the Conservatives talk a lot about more powerful paycheques. Could the member expand a bit on how workers got more powerful paycheques and the role of trade unions in getting health and safety requirements in the workplace, better leave requirements and a living wage for workers? How would the bill help them advance that work?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has been standing up for working people since he first came here to the House of Commons. He has done a remarkable job and made a real difference, and so have unions.

We can remember that, before the labour movement came along, there was nothing like a day off. There was not a weekend, there were no health and safety regulations and there was no overtime. We saw children working in mines and factories. All these things were because corporate overlords had decided to simply use working people, with no checks and balances.

The labour movement delivered the weekend, health and safety regulations, adequate salaries and a minimum wage. It ensured overtime and benefits, such as life insurance, dental benefits and a whole range of other things. All those things came because working people, together, working through their labour organizations, pushed the government.

Of course, the NDP and its predecessor party, the CCF, have fought hard in the House of Commons to make sure that those benefits were realized by all Canadians. This is another step, and it is an important one, but we know the labour movement is always watching Canadians' backs and fighting hard for working families and all working people.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-56, and I congratulate my colleague for his wonderful intervention. As well, I would like to recognize our labour critics, the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Hamilton Centre, who have worked actively on this for a number of generations as private citizens and now as members of Parliament. In fact, one member comes from a union background, and the other comes from a union town that has seen its share of scabs get in the way of good collective bargaining agreements and actually undermine workers.

When we talk about workers, these are the families in Canada that have traditionally bonded together in many ways. We can look at the reasons for co-operative movements that have taken place across this country. They were a way for individual collective families to get together to push back on greed, corporate malfeasance and some of the scandals and corruption in the private sector, the business sector and even in the political sector of the day, to ensure that they have the best opportunities to raise their families with dignity. They were also a way to show that there will be an opportunity for everyone to get ahead in this country.

As New Democrats, our predecessor is the CCF, and we have seen this many times in this chamber and looked towards trying to get anti-scab legislation passed.

The definition of a scab worker is a person who is hired after notice to bargain, including managers, employees or another employer, a contractor who is not already employed by the company; those already working can continue with any change to their responsibilities and are bargaining unit employees. They would be the people who would be a real problem with regard to the economic empowerment of citizens, and this is the working class.

We have to look back in history to see why the working class got together through the industrialization of not only Canada but also the globe. The fact is that they were taken advantage of in many ways. Workers are taken advantage of to this day. Over 1,000 Canadian workers per year die going to work.

The issues over labour have always been put on the back burner. I come from Windsor, Ontario, where we have had the Ford strike and a number of important issues that have taken place, such as the creation of the Rand formula. As well, other labour ingenuities that involve the environment came about because of the exploitation of workers. My own family has paid a high price by getting a number of industrial diseases, because it was okay for the workers to be exposed to asbestos, other chemicals or oil. There was no proper WHIMIS training or ventilation, and dangerous materials were not disposed of in the proper way. To this day, we still have some places that do not follow best practices.

We are asking for the disrespect for workers, which I have seen, sadly, in this chamber, to stop. I am not surprised that the Conservatives are not going to support this initiative, because it really comes from a grassroots base to understand that families collectively want to get together to push back against those who are in power and speak truth to power.

I have been in this chamber many times when the Liberals have actually even voted workers back to work, whether it be the postal workers or at the port of Montreal. These are all debates we have had where, basically, negotiations were actually active and going on, but members of the Liberal government brought in recommendations and closure to those strikes while the free market was trying to figure out what was going to happen next. However, it is good to see that they are going to come around on this.

We see in Quebec and British Columbia that there are models of this initiative, as well as in other countries across the globe. It is going to empower and strengthen collective bargaining for a real resolution.

This is important, because it also affects the public purse. The interesting aspect of this that the Conservatives still do not understand is that collective bargaining actually brings wealth to the working class, the business class and the small business class across this country. When they collectively work together to bring in those corporate responsibilities for a cleaner, safer workplace, as well as better pensions and wages, small businesses boom with that type of response. These are the workers with the least amount of disposable income, but they spend it in their neighbourhoods and communities. They spend to send their kids to school or to invest in their pension later on, which takes pressure off the public purse, because the proper financing is done at that time. This is what the Conservatives do not understand, which is hard to believe. However, it is a simple element that is so consistent with the values of being Canadian, and it would make sure that our lives would get better day by day if we could get this done.

Getting that done means supporting workers who have decided to take a stand against poor conditions in the workplace or a stand when their wages have been out of sync with the profits of the companies.

Most recently, we have seen this collective bargaining bring enhancements to the country as a whole. I congratulate them. We have Unifor most recently and Dave Cassidy and Emile Nabbout. Also, a series of negotiations have taken place that actually bring stability to the workplace because they have been able to get better pensions, benefits and wages at a time when the companies that they represent are making record profits. It has not been easy for them at all, and that is one of the things that is important: that the workers collectively go and negotiate and elect their representatives who have to prove themselves time and time again.

I think of one of my mentors, Brian Hogan, a former Windsor and District Labour Council president and good friend; and Gary Parent, Ken Lewenza and others. There are so many of these people in Windsor whom we could stand on the shoulders of in terms of labour. Most recently we had the Charles Brooks Award representing labour and progressions. Tony Sisti was recommended this year. In the past, it has been people like Rolly Marentette, who fought for workers' health and safety. It goes on and on because their strength in being able to collectively bargain for these benefits is critical; not only for themselves in the private sector unions but also in the public sector unions.

On top of that, it also empowers and lifts up other workers who do not have a collective agreement. That is one of the things that gets missed, and why having scabs undermine those negotiations not only creates conflict, but it pits neighbours against neighbours. People can even be shipped in, which I have seen in the past. I have seen horrible things take place on the picket line, where people have been hit or run over and others have been forced, beaten up or abused. All those things have taken place and that is a bad way to run a community and a bad way to create social strife. When the benefit of the actual agreement takes place, it is often passed on to other workplaces.

More important, for that direct workplace, I can say it had an impact on the families of management because management often got the reflective package of the workers, especially when it came to pensions and benefits. That is one thing that is not really discussed a lot: the white-collar part of a workforce that is not unionized can often benefit when it comes to the collective agreement and the improvements on it.

I look at the Ford-Nemak situation when, thank goodness, John D'Agnolo and the crew at local 200 fought like heck and were on the streets. All of us were, because Nemak at that time received money by Navdeep Bains, the former industry minister, in the province of Ontario, and they got money for a transmission innovation to research. Then, as soon as Nemak, a Mexican company, did that research and built the product, it shipped out to Mexico. Therefore, the workers with their collective agreement were able to sue. Despite the government turning its back on them for so many months and leaving it to the courts and leaving the workers out to dry, we had a number of pickets on line and rallies. On top of that, they went to court and John and the rest of the local 200 people were heroes. Those workers, because of our weak, lax labour standards, had already taken pay cuts just to hang onto their jobs. How insulting it was that taxpayers funded the innovation that went to Mexico and the workers could not follow with their jobs. They did not want to go, they were not invited and it should not have been necessary. That plant is idle today because of that.

As I wrap up, there are so many people we could actually acknowledge with regard to this fight. We have to get it through committee rather quickly because time is of the essence.

I will conclude with this again: This legislation is supportive not only for those men and women who are actually on the line; it benefits every other person in the workforce for public safety, security for themselves, health for their families and wages that need to be reflected in the free market economy that obviously needs correction from time to time by the workers who actually make the money.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the hon. member for Windsor West squares the rhetoric we keep hearing from the Conservatives about powerful paycheques with the fact that they oppose legislation like this and they have twice before voted against a federal minimum wage.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to understand, because the vast majority of disposable income goes to investment in our local communities. It is not the workers who take their paycheques and invest outside this country for other things.

In fact, when we look at the United States, they tax on worldwide profits. When we give corporate subsidies or reductions without any terms and conditions, we actually lose taxpayers' money for that. The more we empower workers, the better for small business, the better for white-collar workers and the better for non-unionized workers. All those things are lifted up by the fact that we have strong collective agreements that are negotiated in a free market system that does not allow bullies to enter the free market system and undermine it.

I have been on the picket line many times where security companies had been hired. If we look at the Windsor Salt situation, some of the members were investigated and private investigators were hired. They have money for all that nonsense, but they do not have money for wages and benefits. It is nonsense, especially when these are Canadian natural resources. People deserve a good paycheque for that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my colleague, after his impassioned speech, the same question I asked his colleague, for which I did not receive an adequate answer. How does he feel about this legislation being put forward in this House of Commons by the Liberal government after it voted against this same legislation in a prior Parliament? The exact people who used to oppose it are now saying they are actually in favour of this now. How does he feel about this flip-flop on the part of the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really do not mind. I hope they will flip-flop too, make this unanimous, move it fast through committee and move it fast and furious through the Senate to make sure this becomes law. It is good for small business and it is good for the rest of the economy. It is good for everybody. I have been here before and I have seen hypocrisy and people changing positions. I have been here for a while, and I welcome change. There is history that we need to deal with, but if we could get everybody on side we could get this done, move on and be stronger as a country. I really encourage the Conservatives to give this a second thought because it is good for the economy, for non-union members and for small business.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my colleague another question, because it is an important matter we are discussing here today. We talked about how the other side of the House has flip-flopped and gone forward with legislation it previously opposed, which shows there is very little principle in what it is doing. However, in addition to that, this legislation would apply to a small sliver of employees in Canada. It would apply only to federally regulated industries, not to Canadian federal workers or industry, including the employees my hon. colleague is speaking about having been on strike with. It does not apply to those workers at all.

How does he square the fact that this applies to a very small sliver of the people in Canada who might go on strike and yet does not apply to the very people the federal government oversees?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am quite comfortable with that, because that is what I can control right now. That is what I can do. What I do know is that if we do this, we improve the situation and it gets better for everybody else. This is also what some of the private sector unions have asked for as part of their core principles of getting this beyond the labour market. For me, it is a welcome first step, and I hope to see it pass before we finish this holiday season.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am concerned about within this legislation is the 18-month delay in moving this legislation forward. Could the hon. member talk about how necessary it is to move this much faster than the 18-month delay within the legislation?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for London—Fanshawe for her work on the labour file. It is so important, because every job matters. We want to enhance a support for people to improve their working conditions. This is time lost that we cannot make up, so I would hope this would be done quicker.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code as well as the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations of 2012. In short, this legislation would prohibit the use of temporary replacement workers during work stoppages in federally regulated workplaces.

After eight long years of these Liberals, Canada is experiencing an unprecedented level of labour strife. Indeed, in the past few years, there have been nearly 300 major work stoppages, completely unprecedented. This is no accident. It is a direct result of the costly policies of these Liberals after eight years, costly policies that have resulted in 40-year high inflation, the fastest increase in interest rates in Canadian history and the cost of everything going up, in no small part as a result of the Liberals' punitive carbon tax.

After eight years of these Liberals, for everyday Canadian workers, work does not pay the way it used to. That is because everyday workers are seeing their purchasing power diminished in the face of 40-year high inflation. The cost of essentials, including for heat, fuel and groceries continues to go up. It will go up further if the Liberals get their way and quadruple their punitive carbon tax. After eight years of these Liberals, Canadian workers are struggling and they are hurting. In the face of these very real cost of living pressures that are a direct result of the costly policies of the Liberals, it is no wonder that we are seeing such a degree of labour unrest.

It is not only the costly policies of the Liberal government that are creating labour unrest, it is also eight years of Liberal mismanagement and incompetence, including with respect to industrial relations. That incompetence and mismanagement was on full display this past summer when there was a strike at the federally regulated B.C. ports that lasted several weeks. It was a strike that was foreseeable months ahead of time. It was a strike that could have been averted, had there been real federal leadership but, as usual, the incompetent Liberal government was asleep at the switch. Consequently, the strike happened, a strike that caused huge disruptions to critical supply chains, hurting both workers and businesses, and costing the Canadian economy half a trillion dollars. That is the cost of Liberal mismanagement and incompetence, further underscoring that after eight years, the Prime Minister just is not worth the cost.

Given the disastrous record of these Liberals when it comes to standing up for workers and helping them get by, we now have a desperate government that is plummeting in the polls, desperately trying to pretend that it actually cares about workers. It has trotted out Bill C-58. We know that the Liberals do not care about workers or at least they do not care about Canadian workers. They seem to care a lot about South Korean workers. Ironically, while the Liberals proclaim their opposition to temporary replacement workers, they voted against legislation produced by the NDP and the Bloc previously to do just that, but I digress.

Simultaneously, as the Liberals move this bill forward, they are bringing in 1,600 replacement workers from South Korea to displace Canadian workers and good-paying union jobs at the Stellantis plant in Windsor. Even worse, thanks to these Liberals, taxpayers are subsidizing the 1,600 South Korean replacement workers to the sum of a staggering $15 billion.

The Minister of Industry said that the $15 billion of taxpayers' money would create thousands of new jobs. What the minister conveniently neglected to say is that it would create thousands of new jobs for South Koreans and not Canadian auto workers in southwestern Ontario.

Now onto the substance of this bill. This bill would apply to key sectors of the Canadian economy, including interprovincial and international railways, air transportation, maritime shipping, banking and other sectors. If this legislation were passed, it would create the possibility that key sectors of the Canadian economy could be ground to a halt. That is something that has to be weighed upon.

What would the implications be, for example, of a weeks-long rail strike? What would the consequences be if an airline, such as Air Canada, were grounded for weeks? These are questions that need to be addressed. There are other possibilities that are realistic, which could happen.

We know the cost of the port strike in British Columbia. It cost our economy half a trillion dollars. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to establish that this legislation would meaningfully benefit federally regulated workers or otherwise strengthen the system of federal labour relations.

The Minister of Labour, in his speech at second reading, claimed that this bill would provide greater certainty and predictability in the collective bargaining process, thereby reducing the number and duration of strikes. However, the evidence based upon the experience of jurisdictions that have adopted legislation of this kind is, in fact, that it is the opposite. In that regard, I would cite data from Statistics Canada, which examined work stoppages in Canada between 2008 and 2016. Statistics Canada found that the provinces with the highest number of lost work days due to work stoppages were in the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, the only two provinces that have legislation of this kind on the books.

I would further note a study from the Department of Employment and Labour, in 2007, that found that legislation of this kind increases the length and number of strikes. There is a significant study from 1999 that looked at 4,000 labour contracts from 1967 to 1993. It found that legislation of this kind actually increases the length of strikes by as much as 50%.

The Canada Labour Code balances the rights of workers and the rights of employers. I have real concerns that this legislation would upend that balance in a way that is not good for employers and also not good for workers.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on a $66.7-million funding agreement that our government made with the City of Edmonton earlier this year to guarantee over 2,000 new and refurbished affordable housing units. That could not have been possible without the fantastic leadership of their amazing mayor, Amarjeet Sohi. Despite the fact that I have never heard the member stand up to talk about the importance of affordable, public housing in the House, we are moving forward with funding for the great City of Edmonton with their awesome mayor.

For the fifth or sixth time today, we have not heard whether or not the Conservatives are actually in favour of banning replacement workers, also known as “scab workers”. This legislation would advance labour rights and workers' rights to make sure that the best negotiations, which always happen at the table, can operate in a fair, open and transparent manner. Cut and dry, does the member agree that we should ban replacement workers in Canada?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, if that useless parliamentary secretary bothered to listen to my speech—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the hon. member that this is exactly the issue we are having with keeping the House running smoothly. When parliamentarians use adjectives that are not proper to use when describing individuals, it creates havoc in the House.

I would remind members to please be respectful in the House when they are speaking of other parliamentarians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will at least acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment had at least some integrity when he stood up in the House and acknowledged that his government had betrayed Ukrainian farmers.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not hearing the answer I was hoping I would hear in the member's response to my colleague's question. Is the member saying that he feels that replacement workers are a benefit to workers?

I am not understanding what his stance is, exactly, on this bill, or if he and his Conservative colleagues will be voting in favour of this bill to ensure that protections are in place to support workers, have fair working conditions and have a fair wage.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about this bill, particularly from the standpoint that it would prolong and increase the number of strikes. Very rarely are there winners when there are extended strikes. Workers lose out on paycheques. There is lost productivity. There is disruption to supply chains, and there is a loss of profit for employers, which often negatively impacts workers' wages.

There are problems, potentially, with this bill. We want a bill that gets it right for employers and businesses and strikes the appropriate balance. I am not sure this legislation does that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech my colleague from Alberta gave. I would ask him to reflect on how it seems like the NDP has highlighted a number of challenges it sees with this bill, although it plans to support it. We recently saw media reports that, if the Liberals do not get pharmacare done this year, it is willing to amend their confidence and supply coalition agreement.

I wonder if my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton would have any reflections on whether the NDP has any integrity left in standing up for the principles that it supposedly ran on in the last election. It certainly seems to me as though NDP members are nothing more than sellouts.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would concur with the conclusion drawn by my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot.

We have this costly coalition, which is making life less affordable for everyday Canadians, including Canadian workers. We have an NDP that has voted against the interests of everyday Canadians multiple times when it supported the Liberals' carbon tax increases. The NDP continues to prop up this costly government.

The NDP will have to answer at the next election for why it is that it has sold out and propped up this corrupt Prime Minister.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind the member to be very careful with the words he uses to describe members in the House. It does not do well for the debates we are trying to have in the House of Commons.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the ruling that came from the Chair was very clear on the language that can be used and should not be used in the House.

For any member to use the term “corrupt Prime Minister”, or “corrupt” in reference to anybody in here, violates the rules the Chair has put forward in the House. I would suggest that the member needs to either retract the the comment or be properly censured until he does.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have members who seem to be weighing in before I even recognize them.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe is rising on the same point of order.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also advocate that, concerning the language used by parliamentarians in the House, hon. members need to remember the ruling that came forward from the Chair earlier.

I know that I myself have a lot of adjectives in my head that I would like to use to describe some of the folks here, but I do not use them. I am very specific about it. I try to maintain decorum, and I would hope that they would do the same.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I know one of the issues for some of my colleagues on this, and in light of the discussion that was had after question period today, is that, when it comes to the conduct and speech of members, there needs to be an equal application of the rules across party lines.

The accusations the government House leader made during question period certainly call into question whether or not those rules are being fairly applied. Therefore, when it comes to decorum in the House, it is absolutely incumbent upon all members. Certainly for my part, I will always be happy to defend the things I say and endeavour to speak the truth.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will recognize one more speaker on this point of order, and then I will make my comments.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in defence of my colleague as well, and I think there is a lot of evidence in the House of Commons that the Prime Minister has, we will say, misled the House. The member called somebody by a name that indicates they have misled, but he did not call any member of the House a liar, which of course is verboten in this House. Instead, he said that this person is corrupt, which means not following the rules. I appreciate where he is coming from in that respect.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That specific word is a pretty strong word. It has caused disorder in the House. I would ask the member to please withdraw his comment.

Before I give my comments, I want to remind members that the Speaker of the House will be coming back to the House. I personally have witnessed what has been happening with parliamentarians on both sides of the House, and I would remind members that we need to be more respectful of each other for Parliament to function smoothly. As the Speaker said in his previous statement, it is incumbent upon all MPs to work together and be respectful of each other in the House for us to be able to make sure Parliament works smoothly.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I attempted to rise before you intervened to respond to the point of order.

I would submit that, by any objective standard, the Prime Minister is corrupt. He has been found guilty twice of violating the Conflict of Interest Act and intervened in an RCMP investigation into his potential criminal wrongdoing by—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There have been a number of individuals in other parties, not just the government party, who have had decisions rendered about conflicts of interest.

I will ask the hon. member to rise in the House to withdraw his comment. It is causing disorder in the House. It is an issue with decorum, and it is not a proper word to use, so I would ask the member to please withdraw his comment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the truth hurts for the cover-up coalition, but out of respect for you as the Chair, I withdraw it.

(Bill C-58. On the Order: Resumption of debate:)

November 27, 2023 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Regan (Minister of Labour and Seniors), seconded by Ms. Ng (Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development), — That Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, for those who are following the parliamentary calendar, that the government is making last-minute changes to the projected order of business, but I am nonetheless very happy to speak today to Bill C-58 and address the government's profound failures when it comes to workers, and talk about the excellent work that the Conservative Party has been doing and will continue to do to support workers here in Canada.

Our priority is creating powerful paycheques for Canadian workers, supporting jobs and opportunity for Canadian workers. In that process, our leader, the member for Carleton, has been travelling across the country meeting with workers, and hearing about their priorities and their concerns. I can tell members that the number one priority for the workers he meets with, and all of us on this side of the House are meeting with, is around jobs and opportunity. It is to have an economy that works for working people, an economy that puts the interests of working people ahead of those of the well-connected insiders the government has so persistently tried to prioritize.

We see this profound disconnect in so many different ways. We see the way that the Liberal government is focused on the interests of well-connected insiders and how it loves shovelling money out to consultants who specialize in encouraging companies to fire more people. These are the kinds of relationships the government is cultivating. These are the kinds of people the government is trying to serve, whereas Conservatives are focused on jobs and opportunity for workers, and creating the kind of economy where more people can work, prosper and succeed.

There are many different aspects in the government's agenda in this regard. We see the context, for instance, of its unjust transition plan. The government, in fact, is now admitting that its so-called just transition rhetoric is unpopular with workers. I was very struck by the fact that the labour minister got up in the House fairly recently and said they do not use the terminology of just transition anymore because workers do not like it. It is true that workers do not like it, but it was not the name that they had a problem with. It was the substance of the government's agenda.

The government talks about so-called transitioning workers as if what workers wanted was to be able to not work. A big part of the reason people work, yes, is for the paycheque, as that is a critical piece of it, but it also comes from the satisfaction they get from being able to accomplish something significant. This is what is so important about work for workers. They appreciate the ability to both earn a paycheque for their family and be able to participate in the creation of value. Both of those things together are important.

The government says to workers that it wants to transition them out of their jobs, but it will have social programs for them on the other end of it. First of all, I think members are rightly skeptical about whether those promises will be delivered on. Second, the people in my riding who work in the energy sector and other sectors are not looking for easy money. They are looking for the opportunity to be able to work hard and build themselves up, along with their families and their communities in the process.

This is the dignity inherent in work. The paycheque is critically important, but it is not just about the paycheque. It is about the satisfaction that comes from work, and this is something that the government just does not understand. This is an essential piece of why the government's unjust transition agenda is so unpopular with workers and calling it something else is not going to change the picture.

In the midst of this larger discussion about workers and the failure of the government to support or respond to the needs and concerns of working people, we have it bringing forward this legislation on replacement workers. I would say what is quite curious about the government's approach to this is that at the same time as it is championing its legislation allegedly dealing with the issue of replacement workers, the government is signing massive corporate subsidies to companies that are, in fact, bringing in foreign replacement workers. That is another example of the duplicity that we see from the other side.

We have been working on this issue at the government operations committee and wearing down a Liberal filibuster.

Conservatives came to the committee saying that we had evidence that over $40 billion in corporate subsidies was being used, not to hire Canadian workers, not to create jobs and opportunities for workers in Canada, but to subsidize companies that are bringing in foreign replacement workers. By the way, over $40 billion is a massive amount of money. It is a big number overall, but if we break it down it is $3,000 per family. That means that all the Canadians who as we speak are at home glued to CPAC, and I salute them for their dedication, and watching this are on the hook for $3,000 because of these subsidies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the member is taking into consideration his calculation, does that include Premier Doug Ford's contribution also?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order, but a point of debate. As we get to questions and comments, I am sure the hon. member can ask it at that time.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that obviously was not a point of order, but, in a way, it was revealing the way the member spoke about it. He thinks when different levels of government spend money it comes from the individual, that when the Government of Ontario spends money that it is Doug Ford's money or when the current government spends money that it is its money somehow. There is only one taxpayer: the people of Canada. Whether it is through provincial, local or national governments, the people of Canada are paying for this. We are talking about very large sums of money individually, so Canadians have a right to ask what value they are getting for this spending. If they were to find that a very large portion of those subsidies was going to subsidize foreign replacement workers, I think they would have a right to be concerned.

Conservatives have taken a very moderate and reasonable approach on this. We just want to get the information, so we asked the government to show us its work. We think Canadians should be able to see the contracts. It is interesting that every time we bring this up, that Canadians should be able to see the contracts, members of the government say that these are great deals, the best that members have ever seen for workers. I would not say that these are the best deals we have ever seen because we have not seen them. We do not know if they are the best deals we have ever seen because we cannot see them, so let us see them.

If the government is so proud of what it is doing it should show us its work. Maybe we will be surprised, but I doubt it. Maybe we will be pleased and say that these contracts are fantastic. Maybe once they are submitted to the committees we will look at them and say that the government has done a great job. We probably will not, but maybe we will be shocked and they will be good. Maybe we will find that the government did not include any protections for Canadian workers. Either way, we want it to show us its work, not to say that it was the best essay it ever wrote but the dog ate it before it could hand it in to the teacher, or that it cleaned it up so well, but somehow the dog got in and no one can see it. What absurdity from the government. If it did the work well, if the workers are protected, then it should show us the contracts. If the government is proud of its approach, if it thinks it has done good work for workers, then it should show us the work.

I believe that in questions and comments we are going to hear members stand up and say that these are the best deals we have ever seen. Enough of the best deals we have never seen. Let us see the deals. Let us see what $40 billion got Canadian workers. Did it get workers anything?

[Irek Kusmierczyk]

Come to Windsor and see the battery plant getting built.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said that I should come to Windsor. I would love to come to Windsor. I will come and door-knock vigorously in Windsor in the next election. We will be there. When we door-knock in Windsor we will tell workers that they have the right to a member of Parliament who wants to show them the work. We will tell them to vote for a member of Parliament who is not going to hide that work, that they deserve a member who is not going to go to committee to filibuster and fight to cover up the work the government is doing. They deserve a member of Parliament who is going to show them what it accomplished, not someone who does not want to show them the work.

Therefore, I challenge the members across the way, if they care about Canadian workers, to let them see the work and release the contracts.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my hon. colleague should come to Windsor and see the hundreds and thousands of workers who are building the battery plant right now. I would love to introduce him to every single one of them. There is a sense of tremendous optimism in my community, because we know we are going to have 2,500 great-paying jobs in Windsor. They will be for local, Canadian, unionized workers to build batteries, and not just for years but for generations.

Eight years ago, I remember, in Windsor, under the Conservative government, we had 11.2% unemployment. The Conservatives lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Windsor was ground zero for that. The Leader of the Opposition would remember that as well, because he was the minister of employment, or as I would like to call it, the minister of unemployment. A big part of that optimism is what the unions bargained for at the bargaining table: huge pay increases for workers.

When will Conservatives support unions? When will they support workers? When will they support Windsor? When will they support the bargaining table and Bill C-58?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that I correctly foresaw exactly what the member's question and comment would be.

He got up and said that this is the best deal we have never seen. He said that it is unbelievable how good a deal this is for workers. However, he did not address the fact that he is going to the government operations committee and filibustering to cover up the release of these contracts. Actually, it is worse than that, because the NDP flip-flopped. There was a little filibustering from the Liberals, and the NDP said, “Okay, we will fold to the pressure from our colleagues in the costly, corrupt, cover-up coalition, and we will agree to hide the contracts.”

I agree with the member on one point. He said there was an incredible sense of optimism in Windsor. I have seen the rallies and the number of people who have come out to hear the member for Carleton speak in Windsor. It is incredible. People in Windsor know that, after eight years of NDP-Liberal rule and of this corrupt government, hope is on the horizon with the member for Carleton.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to remind hon. members that, if we keep our questions and our answers concise, everybody can participate in this debate.

The hon. member for Thérèse‑De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was wonderful to hear all the arguments that were in no way connected to Bill C-58. It was a thing of beauty.

I am going to ask the member a clear question. Bill C-58 is intended to prevent the use of scabs in the workplace so that proper negotiations can take place in the event of strikes and lockouts.

We must prevent the use of scabs. This still happens. At the Port of Québec, longshore workers have been locked out for over a year, and there are scabs coming in to do their work. That is unacceptable. We have failed to correct that situation here for over 50 years. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the Conservative Party is for or against Bill C-58.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what I was talking about in my speech was very clear. That is the reality of how the government, in the midst of talking about the issue of replacement workers, is actually bringing in foreign replacement workers.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh said I should visit and meet with the people who are going to be working on these projects. Actually, I would love to be able to go to Korea and do that.

The Liberal government is bringing in foreign replacement workers. It is trying to bury and hide the contracts. The NDP is now complicit. To their credit, the Bloc has been working with the Conservatives to try to expose these contracts. It is the costly cover-up coalition that wants to hide the contracts from workers.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan mentioned the fact that there is a single taxpayer, and the Conservatives often like to bring that up. I just wonder whether the member and his party will be supporting the NDP's pharmacare proposal. If we made it a federal program, it would save the single taxpayer across this country billions of dollars a year. It would save money for provinces, corporations and individuals. Will he support us?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good opportunity to talk about how we are getting to the end of the year, and we are well over the NDP's red line. Do members remember the NDP convention, where the New Democrats said that they would ensure their plan is supported by the government? Then they said, “Oh, it is actually flexible.” The New Democrats continually cave to their coalition partners, the Liberals. I would say that the member should first focus on trying to get his coalition partners onside for whatever the New Democrats are proposing. There is a long history of the NDP putting forward things that would allegedly save us money; to be charitable, I will say that it does not always—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and proud to be able to rise in this debate on Bill C-58.

It should go without saying in this country that workers deserve respect, fair wages and safe working conditions. However, success in achieving those things has depended largely on the free collective bargaining process. The success of every business, every enterprise and every government program depends on all the workers involved: Those who clean, those who provide security, those who drive and those who provide child care. None of our economy functions without all of us working together. In fact, I would speculate that if the top CEOs and directors stayed home for a day, their businesses would continue to function, because workers would carry on providing those services to the economy and to the public.

However, we should also recognize today that increasing inequality will eventually undermine social stability in this country. We have had the spectacle of Galen Weston, a CEO, appearing before a House of Commons committee and saying it is “reasonable” that he earns, in one year, 431 times his average worker's salary. I would say to Mr. Weston that it is reasonable only in some other universe than the one the rest of us live in. In fact, it is actually even out of scale for the top 100 CEOs, who only, on average, earn 243 times what their average worker does.

A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives demonstrated to us that, in a typical year, and we have a new year coming up, before the end of the second day, the top 100 CEOs will earn more than their average worker in the entire year. By my own calculations, by the end of that year, the CEOs will have earned more than their average worker will earn in a lifetime. Therefore, we have a serious problem with growing inequality in this country, and one of the only ways that we can, on a practical basis, see progress is through free collective bargaining.

We face huge challenges in our society, and I could spend time talking about the challenge of climate change. We face huge challenges, as I said, in inequality. We face all kinds of challenges in our workforce, with labour shortages. How do we address them? We certainly are a wealthy and well-educated country. We have a dedicated workforce, and if we all work together, and everyone pays their fair share, we can meet those challenges. We know what we need to do.

I would cite the NDP dental care plan as an example of how we can meet the challenges we face. This is a health challenge, in particular, for many seniors I hear from in my riding. They worked very hard all their lives but did not necessarily have a job in which their health benefits continued into retirement, if they had them at all. I have had many people approach my office to say that the quality of their life is really impaired by their inability to afford dental care. How is this relevant? If everybody pays their fair share, we can afford dental care for all Canadians.

Some of my Conservative friends have said, “Well, you always support spending. Why is that? You will just support deficits.” I try to correct them by saying that, as a New Democrat, I do not support deficits; I support fair taxation. If we apply the principles of fair taxation, including a wealth tax in this country, we can afford to take care of each other, which is an important principle.

However, where did that principle of taking care of each other come from? It came from trade unions and collective bargaining, where workers joined together and said, “Let us not have some of us succeed at the cost of the rest of us in the workplace.” They negotiated contracts that provided fair benefits, fair wages and better working conditions for everybody in the bargaining unit, and the employers could not just reward those they favoured in the workplace.

I will tell members a door knocking story from an election campaign. I went out one Saturday morning, too early for me and obviously too early for some of my constituents. A gentleman came to the door and said, “Oh, you're the New Democrat. I can't support you.” I said, “Why can't you?” He said, “You're way too close to the unions.” I said, “What day is it?” He said, “What do you mean, what day is it?” I asked again, “What day is it?” He said, “It's Saturday”, and then he looked at me and said, “I see where you're going with this.” I said, “Yes, you're home on the weekend because collective bargaining got people weekends off, which made it a standard in our society.” He said, “Oh, next you're going to talk to me about health care and all kinds of other things unions got.” I said, “That's absolutely what I'm going to talk to you about.” He said, “I still can't vote for you”, and shut the door. I did not succeed in convincing him that day, but even he understood that a lot of the benefits he enjoyed as a non-union worker came from the work of trade unions.

Why am I giving all these examples when we are talking about anti-scab legislation? We know the importance of collective bargaining. We also know, if we stop to think for a minute, that most collective bargaining processes do not lead to strikes or lockouts; the vast majority of them do not. I have seen various statistics. In some sectors, up to 90% of contracts are completed successfully without any work stoppage at all.

What happens when replacement workers get involved? Again, the studies will tell us quite clearly that if replacement workers are hired by an employer, two things happen. One is that the strike, on average, will last six times longer than if replacement workers were not involved. The second thing the use of replacement workers does is to introduce an element of hostility and division in the community, because workers who are on strike see replacement workers as a threat to their livelihood. Quite often, replacement workers are hired through employment agencies or other ways in which they have no idea that they are being sent into such a position of conflict as a replacement worker.

What I think is really good about the legislation is that it would bank this practice. British Columbia and Quebec have already had this kind of legislation for years. Of course, the NDP has been trying to get it introduced at the federal level. We have introduced a bill eight times in the last 15 years. The last time we introduced it, in 2016, both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against anti-scab legislation.

The Conservative Party leader likes to talk about working people and how he is a friend of working people. I would say that the bill gives him a chance to demonstrate that concretely. His previous record does not show that. His party voted against minimum wages. His party, I guess I would say, has never seen back-to-work legislation it did not like. The record is clear on one side. If the Conservatives want to change that record, the legislation before us gives them an opportunity to demonstrate that they really are friends of workers and friends of progress, in terms of our economy.

Who are the workers most affected by the use of replacement workers? I am going to make a strange argument here, but quite often it is actually the non-union workers, because it is unionized companies and unionized sectors that set the standard that employers have to meet, even if those standards are not legislated. When we talk about the people who work in the lowest-paid, non-union jobs, they would actually be protected by the legislation as well, because it would allow unions to have shorter work stoppages and to negotiate better conditions, which would eventually spread through our economy.

Once again, I am back to the point I want to make. We hear a lot about how society and Parliament in Canada are suddenly dysfunctional. I do not believe that is true. I believe what we have are the choices that we are making. We make choices in the economy. It is not inevitable that we have great inequality. It is not inevitable that we have homelessness in our society. We make policy choices that have real outcomes that disadvantage many Canadians. We can make better choices and we can make different choices.

When we are talking about whether the House of Commons can do that, if the House of Commons appears dysfunctional to people, I believe that it is currently the result of choices being made by one party in the House to make the House of Commons appear dysfunctional and to make sure, as the party's leader declared, that we cannot get anything done anything in the House. He said he is going to grind the House to a halt, and we have seen him trying to do that. What is the impact of that on workers? It means we cannot get to legislation like the bill before us. It means we cannot get to a fair bargaining process for workers in the federal sector across the country. I represent a riding where there are lots of workers in the federally regulated sector. I know that this is important to them because they know it would shorten labour disputes and result in less hostility around the picket lines.

One last thing I want to talk about is that the improvement this legislation would make over what exists in B.C. and Quebec is that it considers the issue of remote work. One of the challenges we have now is that, in many industries, if there is a picket line, there is no need for employers to get someone to actually cross a physical line; they can hire people to work remotely. The federal legislation would actually be an improvement over what exists in British Columbia and Quebec, and I look forward to being able to vote in favour of it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's intervention, particularly when he was talking about how a lot of the established practices in the workplace have come through negotiations with unions over the years. I would agree with him completely.

Toward the end of his speech, he was talking about the obstructionary practices of Conservatives in the House. We did some calculations this morning, and, in fact, in the fall session alone that is wrapping up, in one out of every three days in the House, there was some obstructionary practice by the Conservatives. Conservatives will say that is their job, and I would say that it is not; their job is to hold the government to account, but not to grind the place to a halt, which is what they are trying to do. One can hold the government accountable without having to turn this place into a road show.

Would the member not agree with me that the Conservatives have failed in their responsibility?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do think that all of us come here with the idea that we are going to do what is right for Canadians. It is unfortunate when we head to the ditch of obstructionism. An example is that right now, the justice committee is working on a bill called the miscarriage of justice act, which attempts to deal with the fact that many indigenous and Black Canadians have been wrongfully convicted and have spent long times in jail unnecessarily. Because of the carbon tax, the Conservatives are filibustering the miscarriage of justice act. This just makes no sense to me.

In the four terms I have been here, I have seen some bitter disputes over something that was actually before the House, but it is the first time I have seen disputes flowing into all the committees about something that is absolutely irrelevant to the work those committees are trying to do for Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the NDP a question specifically on the issue of replacement workers.

Originally, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc were working together to try to bring to light contracts signed by the government that seemed to allow foreign replacement workers to be brought in on publicly subsidized projects. In fact, the NDP leader asked a question in the House in which he expressed the view that these contracts should be made public. However, since then, the NDP has flip-flopped, voted with the Liberals to bury the contracts and suggested that we just do an ATIP request instead. We all know the problems associated with the ATIP system. Parliamentary committees have a right to request unfettered access to documents.

Why did the NDP flip-flop, abandon workers, give in to the Liberal filibuster and agree to support the government's efforts to bury the contracts?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has just given a perfect example of what I am talking about: the Conservatives' attempting to make the House dysfunctional. The question he is asking has nothing to do with the topic of the bill before us; it has nothing to do with the work we are trying to do in the House today, so it is a perfect example of the Conservatives' trying to make the House look dysfunctional.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his work.

I know that the NDP has wanted this bill for a long time, and the same goes for the Bloc Québécois. We introduced anti-scab legislation at least 11 times over the years. We have been waiting for this for a long time. We think it is essential that this legislation come into force quickly. In my opinion, the government has had a lot of time to work on this and come up with a very good version of the bill.

One of the things that bothers me is the 18-month delay for the coming into force after royal assent. If, much like us, the New Democrats think that enough time has been spent on developing a near-perfect version of the bill, I wonder how they can agree to this 18-month delay. I am wondering whether they will work with us in committee to ensure that the bill comes into force immediately after receiving royal assent.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy working with the member, and her questions are always as they are today: to the point.

One of the concerns I have about the bill is the 18-month delay before its implementation. New Democrats are supporting the bill at second reading so it can go to committee, where there would be a fulsome debate. I too am hoping we can convince the government that the 18-month delay is too long.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to this morning to speak of workers, the labour context, industrial relations and replacement workers. One of the main factors to consider in today's debates is the Liberals' mismanagement over the past eight years. Liberal mismanagement has raised the cost of living for all Canadian workers.

The Liberals' disastrous mismanagement and astronomical deficits sent inflation and interest rates soaring to levels not seen in 40 years. All these factors combine to put pressure on Canadian workers. People have their working conditions and their wages to count on, but when everything is going up, when the price of rent and housing doubles, when people go to the supermarket to feed their family and are forced to spend $150 more each week for the same groceries but their pay stays the same, they can no longer make ends meet. The math is simple.

The Liberals constantly preach at us. My colleagues will no doubt remember how, just after it was elected, this government said it was there for the middle class and those working hard to join it. We even had the joy, the pleasure, of witnessing the creation of a new minister of middle-class prosperity. What a joke. That position no longer exists. As we can see, the government's actions yielded the opposite effect, making the middle class poorer. This is what is happening today.

Furthermore, during the past eight years of Liberal mismanagement, labour disputes in Canada have surged. In recent years, Canada has experienced over 300 labour disputes. This is unprecedented. All this was caused by current conditions. People are struggling to stay afloat. They are at their wits' end. Food banks are overwhelmed with record demand. Two million people are visiting food banks every month. I even see it in my region near Quebec City, where everything usually hums along and people have a good standard of living. Now, queues of people line up for food boxes every Thursday. This is unheard of.

There is so much pressure on workers, and that is causing tension and unrest. That is what we are seeing in Quebec nowadays, but that is a different debate. That is for the Government of Quebec to deal with. Public sector workers are striking, people like nurses and teachers. The same thing is happening at the federal level. The federal government created negative economic conditions in Canada that have led to unrest. Workers are struggling. They are anxious and worried, and for good reason.

I have no choice but to blame the government, because those are the facts. The facts are the facts. Certain actions were taken. The insane spending that has been going on in recent years has doubled the country's debt. As we know, we are going to have to pay $50 billion a year in interest on the debt, the equivalent of 10% of all federal funds. Ten percent of all federal revenues will go toward paying interest to banks in New York and London. This creates a situation where workers can no longer make ends meet. That is untenable, so workers ask for more. Employers are also experiencing inflation. They, too, have to cope with rising costs. The entire market, every industry, is affected by the decisions made in recent years by the Liberal government, decisions that have had a negative impact on everyone.

Other decisions that are entirely inconsistent with the current intention are those relating to Stellantis, Northvolt and Volkswagen. We have learned that Stellantis, which will receive $15 billion in public funds, will be using foreign replacement workers, most of them from South Korea. At first, there were supposed to be 1,600 of them. We now know that about 900 foreign workers are coming to work in Canada.

They are bringing in replacement workers from abroad to take Canadians' jobs. Some will say that these are specialized jobs. I understand that new technologies sometimes require workers with special knowledge to come explain how they work, but not 900 of them. The proof is that, when we first started asking questions, the Prime Minister said there would be no foreign workers. Then one of the Liberal ministers said that there would be a few, and then the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said that there would only be one. At some point, they changed their minds. They realized that 900 Koreans would indeed be coming to Canada to take jobs away from Canadian workers.

Let us not forget that this is an investment of $15 billion in public funds. If a private company sets up shop in Canada and pays for staff from outside the country with its own money, that is its prerogative. However, this is taxpayer money that the Government of Canada is investing in a business with an unproven track record. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it was going to cost far more than anticipated. They are not even sure that it will be profitable and that they will get their money's worth. Regardless, foreign workers are being brought in to work in Canada.

It is the same thing with Northvolt, the company that is setting up in Quebec, halfway to the leader of the Bloc Québécois's riding. This company is also going to bring in foreign workers. The situation is not clear and we are trying to find out more. We asked to see the contracts. We understand that contracts for services with governments contain business-related clauses and they have to be careful, but we are entitled to find out some basic information about the number of foreign workers and their conditions.

Let us not forget that it is taxpayers who are paying for this. We are investing tens of billions of dollars in these projects. These are not small investments. We should have access to this information. The government must find a way to give this information to the opposition parties so they can determine whether it is a good agreement or not. The government does not want to be transparent. This once again creates conditions that make Canadian workers turn around and ask for protection.

What is going on? On the one hand, the government says it wants to protect its workers. On the other hand, it brings in foreign workers, even paying companies to do so. It is being inconsistent. This creates conditions that make people suspicious about what is going on and the way the federal government operates in Canada. They are right to be suspicious.

That has repercussions on the Canadian economy. The COVID-19 pandemic caused severe supply chain disruptions, and the recovery has been difficult. Canada lacks synergy and efficiency in terms of rail, marine and air transportation. We need more consistency, efficiency and predictability. That is what is lacking now in Canada. Other countries are worried. Companies and marine carriers are wondering whether they should be going through Canada to reach the United States because they never know how the trip will unfold.

These worries were created by the government. We saw it during the strike at the Port of Vancouver. The government knew months in advance that there were issues to address. The minister was not able to foresee the situation and find solutions to avoid a conflict. The conflict caused half a billion dollars in losses. It could have been settled ahead of time, and all that could have been avoided.

There are several factors that must be taken into account when it comes to workers. Right now, the main problem is inflation and interest rates, which put pressure on workers, who are worried. Another problem is that the government does not appear to understand that it must ensure effective management and orchestrate public investments. In the case of companies like Stellantis and Northvolt, the government should avoid bringing in foreign replacement workers and give preference to Canadians who are willing to take on the work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the pattern I talked about the other day. We are seeing the MAGA Conservatives, led by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, taking this approach. What they want to talk about is Stellantis and the Volkswagen deal. I get it. MAGA Conservatives do not like it when the government invests in industrial expansion in areas that mean a great deal, with literally thousands of direct jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs.

Why have the Conservatives fallen so dogmatically to the idea of MAGA conservatism that they are bringing it almost on a daily basis into the chamber? What is wrong with the Government of Canada recognizing the potential of an industry? Batteries and the electrification of vehicles are things of the future and they are happening today. We have an opportunity to see that industry grow in Canada. Why does the Conservative Party today not support the growth of that industry?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am sick and tired up of hearing my colleague ask questions based on the premise that we work the same way as in the U.S.

We do not work the same way as in the U.S. As I mentioned in my speech, our concern is clear. We want a coherent policy and to take coherent measures to ensure that Canada is more effective when it comes to transport and energy. As for development, the future in the environmental sector is obviously batteries and the electrification of transportation. We agree on that.

The fact remains that the federal government is making investments and spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. We have legitimate questions about the foreign workers coming in, but the government does not want to talk about that. I do not see how that is akin to American politics. We are talking about Canadian workers. I am in Canada. I am not in the U.S. I ask questions on behalf of Canadian citizens.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his speech, but I do not understand what his actual position will be when we vote on Bill C‑58, which aims to protect striking and locked-out workers by preventing employers from using scabs during labour disputes. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. Federal governments of all stripes have dragged their feet when it comes to adopting such legislation.

Bill C‑58 will protect workers' strike and lockout rights and, during labour disputes, prevent employers from hiring scabs. Is my colleague's party for or against Bill C-58? That is what I want to know.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now I am voting to protect Canadian jobs. Right now, we have a problem with foreign replacement workers and we are not getting any answers. I am more than happy to talk about Bill C‑58, but we want answers. We are taking advantage of this debate to ask the government why companies will be hiring foreign replacement workers. In our opinion, that is the same thing as bringing in scabs. We are bringing in people from outside Canada to fill Canadian jobs. That is what we want to know today.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, right now across Canada we are seeing a cost of living crisis, and this bill would do something important. It would ensure a level playing field, giving workers the power to negotiate as equals with their employers.

We know the Conservatives have supported back-to-work legislation repeatedly, so I am wondering on which side the Conservatives are. Are they on the side of the workers or the side of the CEOs, who make so much when workers make so little?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my speech was clear. The current situation in Canada is unprecedented. This government has put our public finances in a very bad state, and has caused unprecedented inflation and interest rate hikes. Workers can no longer make ends meet. They do not have enough money to pay their rent and their other bills at the end of the month. That is the problem. All of the opposition parties need to work together to stop the government from continuing to spend recklessly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to things that matter to my constituents and to myself.

I did want to take this opportunity first of all to congratulate Tchadas Leo. He is not in my constituency now, but he grew up there. He actually used to be my sons' French tutor. He was just named on Amazon's 2023 best Canadian podcasts of the year list, so that is very exciting. He does tremendous work and talks about the indigenous realities. I really appreciate his work and wanted to acknowledge him today.

We are in this place, so close to the end, talking about a bill I am particularly passionate about, Bill C-58. This is about prohibiting the use of replacement workers and modifying the business continuity process. The reason this is so important to me and to the riding I represent is that we all appreciate the amazing work unions do.

In the House, I talk a lot about there being a bar of dignity in Canada. I feel the bar of dignity is sinking. We need to raise it up so all Canadians have a level of dignity that is acceptable, which means one just has enough to exist and get by without being afraid every day about one's future.

I really need to thank unions. Part of the reason we have all the social programs in this country is the hard work of labour unions. They remind us again and again to work for one another, to care about one another and to make sure that, when people work, they are treated with the dignity they deserve.

This bill is so important because it really is about looking at the system we have in Canada and understanding that, all too often, workers lose their power because replacement workers are able to go in and fill those positions when they are doing their important work of standing up against employers on issues that really matter.

The reality is that we know workers across this country deserve a lot more respect. They are working hard every day doing what is best, and they are still falling behind. This is an epidemic we are seeing in this country that needs to be dealt with. We need to see better wages, and we need to see better working conditions. The NDP has a long documented history of always working on the side of workers and listening to those voices.

In fact, when it comes to this legislation, the NDP is in an agreement that forced the Liberal government to move forward with this meaningful piece of legislation. We know this because the NDP introduced anti-scab legislation in this place eight times in the last 15 years. In fact, the last time it came up for a vote, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against it. This just tells us that there is a long history of the NDP being here, and we took what power we had with 25 members to make sure workers are better represented in this country and have more power in this country, and it is about time.

Like unions, and like workers across Canada, we did not give up. We kept working diligently. We know the fight is hard and significant. We know that because right now, across this country, people cannot afford the food they desperately need to exist. As that is happening, grocery stores are making some of the biggest profits, especially those big box ones. It is not those local ones in our communities, which often do so much for the community, such as pay for sports clubs and help out. An example of this is Quality Foods in Campbell River ans what it does with the fireworks every Canada Day. It is those big box stores that are taking home huge profits at the expense of workers.

We know, for example, that Galen Weston makes 431 times the average of the workers who work for him. Those folks who work every day on the front lines are interacting constantly with people. They are seeing people who cannot afford the groceries they have in their carts and need to put items back on the shelves. Often, workers in those grocery stores cannot afford to shop at the grocery store they work at. They have to go to food banks to make ends meet, and Galen Weston is making over 400 times the amount those workers are. That just tells us one of the things we need to address in this country is that growing inequity. It is happening. We can see it.

There is a lot of research showing that the top 1% continue to make more money and pay less in taxes while everyday workers work hard, get paid about the same and, knowing that inflation is impacting their income, keep working hard and paying their fair share in taxes. I hope that we, as a place that understands the bar of dignity for all Canadians, start considering that. Even though Galen Weston makes that much, the average these top CEOs are making is 235 times what their workers are making. I think that is totally unacceptable. It is something that all of us in this place should be addressing, and this is one step toward doing that.

What is a scab? A scab is a person hired after the notice to bargain has gone out. These people are coming from other employers to work in a facility as contractors not already hired by the employer until a strike action happens. As a member who represents a more rural riding, I can say that right now the impact this has on community is profound. We see people we grocery shop with out on the line every day standing up for their rights as workers and see others walking past that line to work somewhere. Some have to keep fighting and are not getting paid or getting the supports they need and it decimates communities. It is really profound. That is why we are fighting for this.

We also know that corporations are getting more tricky. They may have people out on the picket lines while getting people to work remotely. This legislation matters because it is for all of Canada. I recognize that both Quebec and B.C. have anti-scab legislation. We know where that came from in B.C.; it was definitely the New Democrats. However, it has to be across the country and it needs to be more fulsome so we can protect workers.

Is it not time we started to protect workers in a more meaningful and profound way? We know that workers have waited long enough. How many more years do they have to wait? How many times has this promise been made and not followed through with? We are going to make it happen and we are really happy to do this.

What this means for people is protection against replacement workers, which gives workers more power in negotiations and helps to have a more balanced bargaining table. That is incredibly important. We know that using scabs again and again creates unforeseen things. We have heard stories of the violence that often lingers in communities much longer than the labour dispute. We know that workers have even been injured or killed as a result of these tensions. When people are doing their very best to survive and see other people limiting their ability to do that, it raises a lot of concerns, and we do not want to see violence increase.

Of course, whenever workers are replaced, it means employers get to continue on like nothing is wrong, not acknowledging safety issues and issues around how much people are compensated. These things become difficult and this legislation is going to make all the difference.

I want to thank the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bea Bruske, who said, “We have seen years of record corporate profits while workers’ pay lagged far behind. Workers are rightly demanding fairer wages, better safety standards and respect from their employers.” She went on to say, “If we ban the use of scabs once and for all, we can take a real step towards less labour disruptions, avoiding work stoppages and building a more balanced economy—while increasing the benefits and respect workers deserve.”

We need to see a country that focuses much more on workers and looks at the power they need and rightfully should have. What we want to see in this place is more cohesion so we can support those workers. We know that often disputes last six times longer when employers use scabs than when there are no scabs. That, for me, is enough. We need to make this right.

Again and again in this place we have seen back-to-work legislation come forward and both the Liberals and the Conservatives have supported it. It is absolutely time to stop that. Let us get it done by having this in place.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening quite carefully to the speeches coming from members of the NDP. I notice they keep using the term “fair share” of tax.

I wonder if the member could articulate for the House what exactly they mean by “fair share”? Is there a percentage? We know that high-income earners in Canada pay between 50% and 55% of their income toward income tax depending on which province they live in, so what percentage is the right percentage? What do they call fair?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so sad to hear that lack of understanding and awareness in this place, and I really encourage the member to do research. We know that people who have the—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There are opportunities for questions and comments. If members have questions and comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time. A member has already been recognized, and I would ask others to wait to ask a question at a different time.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for that. It is unfortunate that members feel so defensive that the only result is to yell while I am giving a simple answer.

Fairness is not a reality in this country. We know that the top 1% earners are getting so much more. They are paying less tax because they are using every tax loophole. In fact, some are hiding their money overseas. These are policies that the Liberals and the Conservatives have continuously supported. That is unfortunate but it is the reality.

I encourage all members to talk to everyday working people, who pay their fair share of tax, about how it feels when other people do not pay theirs. I also want to remind the Conservative Party that the Conservatives in the U.K. acknowledged this by having a windfall tax and making sure that money went back into communities to support them during very trying times.

We know this is a reality. There are a lot of graphs out there. I encourage them to do their research.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, anti-scab legislation has been an important personal issue for me for many years, dating all the way back to 1988 and 1989 in my first few years as a parliamentarian. I was really glad when the Prime Minister incorporated that into our last election platform, and I am really glad that three political entities in the chamber are committed to getting anti-scab legislation through.

What I find interesting is that the Conservatives have yet to say how they are going to vote on the legislation, yet out in the communities, they are telling people that they are for the workers.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, we honestly do not know where the Conservatives are on this very important bill, which would bring more balance to workers. This bill focuses solely on workers and it is an opportunity. We know that the corporate-controlled Conservatives have a hard time working for people. They like to say things, but when it comes to workers, they do not do them. We have seen that in how they vote for back-to-work legislation repeatedly.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her clear message today that we need anti-scab legislation and for her reminder of how critical this legislation is for workers' rights and for fairness for workers and all of us. It is a historic moment, as we are seeing the NDP once again standing up for workers, standing up for Canadians and fighting back. However, we have the Conservatives, in a party that has revamped itself recently and is pretending to defend Canadians who are struggling, who are refusing to get behind anti-scab legislation.

Can my colleague share her views on why the Conservatives are refusing to stand up for Canadian workers?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a really important question. My grandma used to always say the proof is in the pudding. We know that actions speak louder than words, and what we have seen again and again with the corporate-controlled Conservatives is that they choose their corporate friends over hard-working Canadians. They can say they are about the working class, but again and again their actions show that that is not their focus and it is not what they do. It is one thing to say something; it is a completely different thing to do it. The NDP will continue to do the work that matters so much to workers across this country.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to observe the debate that has been taking place in the chamber here today on Bill C-58. I would note a couple of observations, if I could, because I believe they provide important context to the conversation we are having.

One observation that I note to members and to the many Canadians who I am sure are watching is the flip-flops we are seeing in this regard. We have the Liberals desperate to keep the NDP onside, yet it seems like the New Democrats are quick to sell out when it comes to holding on to the thread of power they feel they have. We hear the New Democrats talk tough against the Liberals in one sentence; then they walk down the street to committee.

The leader of the NDP said in the beginning that committees would not be affected by the confidence and supply coalition agreement, yet we see the New Democrats capitulating to the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is completely irrelevant. We are talking about anti-replacement worker legislation, and a member cannot get up and just talk. If he has not read the bill, I would suggest he read the bill and get the information, but he has to speak on topic.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that there is some flexibility during speeches. However, hon. members do need to ensure that their speech is related to the bill and should mention the bill from time to time during their speech, if possible, or aspects within the bill.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am always glad that the New Democrats are paying such close attention. If they would pay such close attention to Canadians, they would see how far off base they are with average workers, who I am speaking to from coast to coast to coast and who are attending the rallies of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton.

This is an interesting observation and it does connect closely to Bill C-58, and I am glad that the NDP member is paying attention. What we are hearing increasingly is that workers across this country feel abandoned by left-leaning parties in this country. They feel abandoned by an ideological focus on things that are shifting the conversation away from Canadians being able to prosper.

When it comes to the bill we have before us, the New Democrats are taking credit for it, yet I have seen them time and time again stand up and declare all the problems that exist within it. For example, they have stated that they do not agree with the 18-month window for its coming into force. We have heard from the minister who introduced the bill that there is some ambiguity as to who it would apply to. We see that it affects federally regulated sectors but does not affect the public service.

There are many holes in this legislation, and it is unfortunate the New Democrats seem to be so quick to sell themselves out for this slight grip on power they seem to have. We saw that obviously, which relates directly to the conversation we are having, when the leader of the NDP, only a number months ago when facing a confidence vote at his convention, drew a red line. The members of that party said that if they did not have pharmacare by the end of the year, the deal was done.

We see once again that we simply cannot trust what the New Democrats promise. We simply cannot trust what they say they are endeavouring to accomplish. The Liberals, in this coalition agreement, either have had some of the worst negotiations we have ever seen or are simply playing along with this tenuous idea of power or security, as they may be afraid to face the electorate in this country.

The member proved my point about how angry the New Democrats are about this. They seem angry about everything the Liberals are doing, yet they are the ones who continue to prop them up. That is no more true than in the situation we find ourselves in. We are debating a bill on replacement workers, yet we see the New Democrats supporting the government in bringing in thousands of foreign replacement workers on government-subsidized projects. Tens of billions of dollars are being spent to subsidize battery production facilities.

I will take a brief detour, if I could. I believe fully that a huge economic opportunity exists when it comes to energy in Canada, whether it is in traditional forms of energy or new clean tech. What I find absolutely tragic is that the ideological Liberals are so blinded by the idea that they have to be in control that they refuse to allow our economy to prosper. They refuse that of my constituents.

I am proud to be in the beating heart of Canada's energy industry. In fact, 87% of Canada's crude oil transits through a little town called Hardisty in my constituency. That may be an embarrassment to the left-learning parties in this House. The reality is that when it comes to the energy that powers our nation, that can power the world and that provides not only good-paying jobs to the folks I represent but the revenue and taxation to so much of what we have come to depend on in our country, it is an absolute embarrassment that the Liberals and the NDP have abandoned these hard-working Canadians for this ideological fantasy that is simply not worth the cost.

Let us get back to the foreign replacement workers. The situation we have before us is that the Liberals are quick to brag about the deals they have signed. However, what is very troubling is that while they brag publicly about the deals, they refuse to tell us what those deals are.

They talk about the number of jobs they are creating, but the misinformation, the disinformation and the competing information we get from the Liberals makes the Prime Minister's math that budgets balance themselves seem to be of top quality when compared to the scope of differences that exists between the different estimates we have seen on the number of individuals who will be brought into Canada, subsidized by Canadian taxpayers, and the dollars being sent to workers who are not from this country.

What is tragic about this conversation is that, in the beginning, it was a leader of the opposition who stood up in his place to share his outrage. He was outraged about the revelation of these foreign replacement workers and said that he was going to get to the bottom of it, that his MPs were going to fight for that every step of the way, yet it only took a couple of short weeks—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hate to call a point of order because it only prolongs how much longer I have to listen to this, but do you think you could ask the member to at least return to the subject? You have already asked him once and stressed the importance of that. Perhaps he could return to the subject of the bill that we are debating today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Although there is some leeway, I also was wondering when the hon. member would actually get to the bill itself. I would remind the member that he is to speak to the content of the bill. Yes, he can add some other content, but he should be focused on the bill that is before the House.

I have another point of order from the hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, I was listening very closely to the member giving his speech. He was talking about the replacement workers coming to the Stellantis battery factory from South Korea. This is a piece of legislation about replacement workers, and he was directly referring to the replacement workers that the Liberals authorized to come—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member adding to the conversation. The hon. member added a very minimal quality, but I want to make sure that the debate is on the bill itself.

I do want to allow the hon. member to finish his speech. He has almost three minutes.

I have another point of order from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, if we are going to talk about the topic of this bill and use the term “replacement workers”, I would just like to point out that they are temporary foreign workers, however people feel about them. I happen to think that temporary foreign workers are a good addition to our economy. However we feel about them, they are not replacement workers under this legislation. Either the members are confused or they are deliberately—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize. I had to turn up the volume on my speaker because I could not hear the hon. member that well, but I did get the gist of it. That would actually be a point of debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly always interesting, when I speak the truth in this place, the level to which it triggers the left in this country. The response is certainly astounding. While we debate the concept of a bill that would supposedly ban replacement workers, although there are some clauses that we could drive an electric vehicle through, it is quite fascinating to listen to other parties here, in particular the NDP. This emphasizes the point I was making. I think it has to do with the credibility the NDP is claiming on this legislation. While the NDP's leader and its members stood strong, demanding answers, it took only a couple of weeks for them to back down.

I wish I were kidding here, but instead of demanding that a parliamentary committee get the answers, get the contracts in this case and see the contracts, so that Canadians could know for themselves exactly what we were talking about, such as the number of replacement workers and what was negotiated on behalf of taxpayers, what did the NDP do?

This is not just a private company or private individuals. This is a minister of the Crown and a government department negotiating to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in tax dollars. That is not the government's money. That is Canadians' money. Instead of demanding accountability, although they feigned outrage in this place, what did the NDP do at committee? The NDP backed down and said it would just file an ATIP. Instead of demanding answers, the NDP would just file an access to information request. The government has repeatedly refused to abide by the most basic measures of accountability to provide the answers that Canadians deserve.

When it comes to the subject matter we are debating today, it comes down to the idea of trust. For the NDP, I do not know how its members can continue to trust the Liberals. For Canadians, it is increasingly clear that they cannot trust the left-leaning coalition that governs this country. When it comes to the best interests of workers, it is crystal clear, whether unionized or not, whether a new sector in the economy or a traditional one, the left-leaning coalition in this country does not have workers' backs. The good news is that Conservatives do. We are going to bring it home for Canadians.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the third time that my Conservative colleagues have mentioned the use of replacement workers, or foreign workers, in factories in Windsor or in battery factories.

Bill C‑58 deals with something else entirely. That is crystal clear. Although the bill refers to “replacement workers”, I think that the Conservatives know that it is intended to prevent the hiring of scabs in the event of a labour dispute. Its aim is to finally prevent employers from using scabs during a strike or lockout and allowing the dispute to go on forever. That is unfair. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. The question is clear. We are talking about scabs.

Will my colleague vote for or against Bill C‑58?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Bloc has been willing to partner with the official opposition in the sense that we are demanding answers, unlike the New Democrats who have abandoned their principles and sold out their ideology to simply attain some tenuous grip on power—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. deputy House leader that I just reminded others a while ago that, when someone else has the floor, they should please wait until the next turn for questions and comments if they wish to contribute.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that they are demanding answers on this. It bears a close connection and comes down to the very fundamental idea of trust. We need to look closely at the legislation before us, but can we trust those who have proposed it?

When it comes to workers, whether it is farmers in my constituency or energy workers or manufacturing in Ontario or coastal port workers, it is time for a party that supports workers and prosperity in this country. Unfortunately, they have been abandoned by Canada's left. However, they should not worry because Conservatives are here to bring it home for all Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak on Bill C-58, so I will first put on the record that the Green Party supports this very important legislation. It is time for Parliament to act to protect workers' rights.

I used to practise in the area of labour law with a firm in Halifax back in the day that represented trade unions, specializing in labour law. I would ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to clarify why we are spending so much time on this debate.

I know he and other Conservatives have been told by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville that there is no connection in this bill whatsoever to having foreign workers come to any plant in Canada or any workplace in Canada. This bill is specifically to protect the right of collective bargaining and the rights of workers who have gone out on strike to not have what are called scab workers. That is a replacement worker. The workers at the Stellantis battery plant are not scab workers. Does the member agree?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands well. I know she has had some health challenges. In the midst of a heated debate, although she and I would probably disagree on many things, I wish her well. I wish her a very merry Christmas and hope that her health continues to improve.

My response is simple. If we had the answers to these very basic questions by being able to see the contracts and understand what labour negotiations were included in the contracts with Stellantis or the number of other major contracts that the government has signed but refuses to provide details on, we could definitely say exactly what the member is suggesting. The problem is that because the government refuses to give us the details, we cannot definitely say that is not the case and it is unfortunate that the NDP, especially, will not join us in demanding that accountability.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

On a point of order, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am following up on the point of order from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle this morning.

I have images of fundraisers that were conducted by a Speaker. I would like unanimous consent to table the images of these fundraisers involving a Speaker. It is the former Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and three partisan fundraisers that he was involved in as Speaker. I would ask for permission to table those documents.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am hearing “no”, so there is not unanimous consent.

On another point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, earlier, the Conservative House leader was asking to table documents of a Speaker and what he classifies as inappropriate behaviour. Now the Conservatives are saying no to tabling a document that shows inappropriate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have already asked and we have gotten a “no”. This is now going into debate.

On a separate point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we are speaking to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, otherwise known as the anti-scab legislation that workers from across the country have been calling for since time immemorial.

The NDP has put forward this legislation eight times in the last 15 years, and it has been defeated by Liberals and Conservatives alike. We are very happy and proud that we have forced the Liberal government to table the legislation this year; we look forward to seeing it become law as soon as possible.

Workers around the world have only one power to balance the relationship with employers. That is their work, the labour they provide to make the products or provide the services that give their employers their profits. The withdrawal of that labour or even the threat of withdrawal is the only thing that levels the playing field in labour negotiations. When negotiations break down and workers feel that a strike is the only option left to them to obtain a fair collective agreement, if the employer brings in replacement workers to break that strike, the playing field is tilted steeply in favour of the employer. Employers have no real reason to bargain in good faith, or at all, with the workers.

Labour relations in Canada have a long and deep history, and some of the most important moments in that history happened in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, in the Rossland mines. In the late 1800s, there was a mining boom across my riding, with gold mines in the South Okanagan and silver in the Slocan. Some of the richest mines were in Rossland.

In 1895, the Rossland miners formed the first Canadian local of the Western Federation of Miners. That local went on to advance many of the first labour laws in British Columbia and Canada, laws that brought in the five-day work week and the eight-hour workday, as well as laws enforcing safe workplaces, the first workers' compensation act.

Unrest in the mining camps resulted in the Canadian government sending Roger Clute, a prominent Toronto lawyer, to Rossland in 1899. He reported back that compulsory arbitration would be less effective than conciliatory measures, and after another trip to Rossland, his reports led to the federal Conciliation Act of 1900. That helped create the Department of Labour and the Canadian system of industrial relations. Rossland, and the miners of Rossland, helped build our system of labour relations across the country.

When everyone in this place goes home for the weekend; when everyone in the country goes home at five o'clock, after an eight-hour workday; and when every worker in Canada knows they have the right to a safe workplace, they can thank the members of the Rossland local of the Western Federation of Miners.

That is the benefit of having a healthy and fair system of labour relations. At the centre of that system is the right of workers to withdraw their work. Replacement workers, or scabs, destroy that system. Not only does hiring scabs take away any power that workers have to undertake fair negotiations, but it also often tears communities apart, especially small communities that have few other opportunities for good work. If workers go on strike in that situation and the company hires scabs, those replacement workers are taking away jobs from their neighbours and relatives. This increases tensions within the community, sometimes escalating into violence.

Using replacement workers was common during early strikes, including in the mines of British Columbia, and there are too many stories of violence from those days. One of the worst stories, though, comes from relatively recent times, when the workers at the Giant Mine in Yellowknife went on strike in 1992. That gold mine had been the mainstay of the Yellowknife economy for many years, but a new owner demanded cuts from the union, then locked the unionized workers out.

The company then hired replacement workers to keep the mine going and to keep the profits rolling in. Hostilities quickly rose, pitting neighbours against neighbours; this culminated in a bombing within the mine that killed nine miners, nine replacement workers. It is one of the worst mass murders in Canadian history.

This is why we need anti-scab legislation. This is why British Columbia and Quebec introduced anti-scab legislation and have had it for decades. Critics say that this legislation may allow strikes and lockouts to drag on; in fact, it usually has quite the opposite effect.

What impetus does the employer have to end a strike if they can use workers to keep things going, to keep those profits rolling in? If anything, outlawing replacement workers speeds negotiations up because both sides are on an even footing. The employer is losing profits, and the unions are losing pay. They both want to end the dispute as soon as possible. Many of the longest labour disputes in Canadian history have been those involving scabs, because the employer has no reason to bargain with the unions.

This law would take effect in federally regulated industries, such as ports, railways, airports, telecommunications and banks.

We recently had a dispute at the Port of Vancouver, and we are studying that issue in the international trade committee right now. Some witnesses have tried to paint a picture that labour is the cause of a declining reputation in Canadian supply chain reliability, that the unions dragged out negotiations and caused this strike. What we have heard at committee is exactly the opposite.

First, this is the first strike at the Port of Vancouver since 1969. Most people in this chamber were not even alive then. The collective bargaining system has been working very well there.

Second, delays in bargaining were clearly the fault of the employers or, rather, their association, the BC Maritime Employers Association. The BCMEA represents the employers at the bargaining table, but it had no mandate to make decisions. The union would respond with a counter-offer to the employers' offer within a day, but the BCMEA would take a week or 10 days to come back with its counter-offer.

Negotiations dragged on. The strike began, and it took 13 more days to come to an agreement. If it were not for the delays and intransigence of the employers, we could have easily reached that agreement before strike action was necessary.

We must remember that there are two sides to every labour dispute. The best, fairest and often shortest negotiations are those in which both sides have an equal balance of power. That is what Bill C-58 brings to the federal labour scene.

The NDP is, of course, very much in favour of this legislation. We have worked hard and long to improve it and will continue to do that when it goes to committee.

Our big concern now is the provision, within this bill, of a delay of 18 months before the legislation comes into force after passing through Parliament. We have heard no good reasons for this delay, and we will be making the case in committee to amend that part of the bill.

If the use of replacement workers is illegal, that provision should come into force immediately. I can see no reason that corporations or unions need 18 months, a year and a half, to get their heads around this change to Canadian labour law.

I remember one of the first debates I took part in in this place, a debate on an NDP private member's bill, in 2016, that was essentially the same bill we are debating today. I was so encouraged that we could be making such a big difference for workers, but I was profoundly surprised and disappointed when the Liberals and Conservatives defeated that bill.

I have since, unfortunately, gotten used to disappointments in this place. However, with this bill, we have the opportunity to take a step toward hope. I hope we can pass this bill at second reading quickly, have the committee debate it in detail and pass it so that all Canadians can enjoy better labour relations across the country.

With that, I would like to wish everyone here and everyone in the wonderful riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay a very happy Christmas and a peaceful holiday season full of love and good cheer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to just pick up on the member's last comment, in regard to the importance of the legislation and how wonderful it would be to actually pass it through to the committee stage. The Conservatives like to go around the country telling Canadians that they are pro-worker, that they are there to support workers. I think it would be a very strong, powerful message, collectively, from the House and all political parties, if we could see this legislation ultimately collapse the debate. Then, we could allow for it to actually go to committee before Christmas.

Would the member not concur with the thought that sending this, in a unanimous way, to a standing committee before Christmas would be a wonderful gift for the workers in Canada?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I often say this, but in this case, I am very happy to agree with the member for Winnipeg North that we should move this forward. This may mean including it in one of our famous omnibus unanimous consent motions that happen at the end of sessions, but we should be passing this soon, for all the reasons I outlined.

I hope the Conservatives will join us in that effort. They try to make it sound like they are on side with the workers of Canada, but every time we have debate and a vote in this place on workers' rights, they vote against it. I cannot remember any single instance of them voting against back-to-work legislation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.

Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. It is not a new thing. Sometimes we say that we are wasting our time here, constantly waiting for the federal government to take action. Here is another good example of that. Quebec has progressive measures and protects workers' rights, but the federal government is once again dragging its feet and slowing us down.

Earlier, my colleague from Winnipeg North said we should send this bill to committee right away and get it passed fast. I would like to remind my colleague that, in 2021, special legislation was invoked to end the Port of Montreal strike. The Liberal Party introduced that bill with the Conservative Party's support. So much for today's little shenanigans. The Liberals think they are standing with workers and defending workers' rights.

Here is my question: Should we get rid of the 18-month delay as soon as possible once this bill goes to committee?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. There has been anti-scab legislation in Quebec for decades. We have had anti-scab legislation in British Columbia for decades, and it has proven very useful and positive.

It has been a disappointment, as I said at the end of my speech, that the federal government has not done the same until now. It looks as though we have a chance to move this forward. I hope we can get it to committee, where we can make some important changes such as getting rid of that 18-month delay, which I know the Bloc Québécois supports as well. I fully support what he had to say.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, with the labour shortage right now, having a stable workforce is seen as one of the best assets going forward. This would help provide some more strength to having a stable working environment and strong conditions to attract investment. In fact, that is one of the cases we are hearing significantly from areas of labour shortages, so I would like my colleague to reflect on that. Reducing labour shortages and actually having less turnover and more stability in the workplace is a competitive edge for all of Canada. Could my colleague provide a sense of how important this is for the economy?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague from Windsor West. I tried to make the point in my speech that this legislation, getting rid of replacement workers, would speed up labour negotiations, shorten strikes when they happen and really balance the system, so we have labour peace in this country. That is what we need.

I was very disappointed when the Canadian Chamber of Commerce came before our committee and asked us to vote against this. It did not seem to understand it was voting for more and longer labour disputes, which is something it does not want. We do not want that either, nor do workers or corporations. Therefore, let us get this bill passed.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and talk about the issues of the day. I understand that Bill C-58 was not originally on the agenda, but it is still a great opportunity to speak about it.

Prior to becoming the critic for the Conservative Party on housing, I had the honour of being its critic on labour. I worked directly with our current critic, the member for Essex, who, I think, is doing an amazing job. I was reflecting on the comments he made about this particular bill. Of course, in his riding of Essex, there is a lot of organized labour and skilled trades, and he talks to a lot of people in his constituency. Talking to real people is a great way to learn what is really going on, and I am not sure enough of that has gone on with the current government.

I think about the importance of workers. Any great business owner will tell us that it is the people who make their business work. The best businesses take care of their workers. Of course, Conservatives believe in the right to collectively bargain, which is an important part of the process, but what I am more concerned about than anything is the need for this legislation right now. One of the situations we are seeing in this country is that there is an awful lot more labour disruption and more strikes, whether at the Port of Montreal or in Vancouver, and one has to ask why that is happening. I know, from talking to leaders of the labour movement, skilled trades and business, that a big part of the problem facing workers in this country is the cost of living, which is getting out of control. Inflation is driving up the cost of food and the cost of heating our homes, or even of getting a home.

We know that the labour situation affects the housing situation as well. This is one of the things we have been focusing a lot on. CMHC has told us that we need to build 3.5 million more homes in the next 10 years than we would normally build. That is a total of almost six million homes, which works out to 750,000 units a year. The most we have ever built in a year is about 260,000, which was in the seventies, when it was very easy to get things like permits and approvals. Today, the most difficult part of building a home is getting permission to build it. One of the major barriers to getting homes built is labour, the skilled trades. We need more electricians, plumbers and other labour. We have a government that, I guess, did not understand the demographic shift that was going on in our country and did not really prepare for it, but we have a situation today where there is a desperate need for more people to help us build the homes people need.

The inflationary spending of the government is a big part of the reason why we are behind the eight ball on the housing issue. It is why people cannot afford to pay rent. Rents have doubled. In the eight years of the photo-op-happy, talking-points government, home prices have doubled and rents have doubled. With respect to mortgage rates, over this last year, we have seen the fastest increase in interest rates that we have seen in 40 years. Of course, the impact of this is that the people who were hoping to get into the market are now that much farther behind and are never going to have a chance.

What the people who own a home are struggling with, and I can see the member is going to rise on a point of order, because—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member predicted that I was rising on a point of order.

He is talking about the budget, while the bill before us is about anti-scab legislation. This is an ongoing theme with Conservatives; they are not staying on topic. Perhaps you could ask the member to get back on topic as you did with the previous—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As I have indicated, there is some leeway. I want to remind members who are speaking to bills to make sure they reference the bill from time to time and relate their speech to it.

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will explain to the member, because he clearly does not quite get it. Part of the reason we have more labour strife in this country is, in fact, the inflationary spending of the current government. The excessive borrowing is causing everything to go up in price, and people in organized labour, like everybody else, are struggling to put food on the table. That is why I am referring to these issues. It is why I am referring it back to an issue that is completely connected to organized labour, and that is housing, which is the foundation of society: a warm, safe bed to sleep in at night. There are people working all across this country, whether they are in a union or not, who are struggling to make ends meet. That is causing labour strife.

My point about Bill C-58 is that it is the government's attempt, along with its coalition partners, to deflect from the real issues and from its failures as a government, including the massive borrowing and spending it has done for the last eight years, that is causing everything to go up in price and causing labour strife. If the Liberals understood the impact of their inflationary policies, things like Bill C-58 really should not be the top priority. It is an important discussion to have, but what we really need to do is get the cost of living down in this country. We need to make life more affordable for Canadians. Whether or not it is their inflationary borrowing and excessive spending, I know that the Liberals believe that the best way to solve any problem is to hire more bureaucrats and make the government bigger. However, in fact, the best way to make life more affordable for Canadians is to get out of their pockets and give them a break.

Bill C-58 is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that there is no opportunity for cross-debate at this point. There is just an opportunity for questions and comments after the speech.

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether the two members are familiar with The Muppet Show, but they remind me a bit of Waldorf and Statler right now. That is okay.

Bill C-58—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind members that when they are describing members of the House, they should be respectful.

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Honestly, Madam Speaker, that was respectful. It was meant in jest, and I think it was a very positive thing. Only one of them is offended, so they are actually playing the role very well, which is great.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

If the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka could get back to his speech and the debate that is before the House, that would be great.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely I will.

I would like to point out that the cost of living issue that I have been talking about is directly related to Bill C-58 and the fact that there is more labour strife in this country. We have seen a lot more of it. Obviously, I am just trying to make the point, tie in the point and help them understand, across the aisle, that, in fact, the Liberals' inflationary borrowing and spending and their big-government solutions to everything are part of the reason we are having more labour strife in this country. If the Liberals understood the implications of their disastrous policies, they would understand why it is important to point that out when discussing things like Bill C-58.

It is also interesting to note that Bill C-58 would ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workspaces, such as banks, airlines and rail, which are all very important. Of course, the government is making sure that this would not apply to federal workers, just federally regulated workspaces, so it is one of the classic double standards of the Liberal Party where it wants to make sure that it looks to be doing the right thing, but we are not sure that it really is. It is just one more example of a government that is good on talking points and long on photo ops, but not really great at delivering results.

I am sure there will be some really insightful questions from across the aisle.

I would just say, in reference to the cost of living and the issues that Canadians are facing today, that, as this will be the last time I speak in the House before the Christmas break, I would like to wish everyone a happy Christmas and a happy holiday, and remind them to be thinking about their neighbour this holiday season. Lots of people are struggling. If people can support their local food bank, I ask them to please do that. Our neighbours need our help, this year more than ever.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I actually feel sorry for the member. I genuinely believe that he is one of the more progressive ones in his party, yet somehow he seems to have been sucked down the rabbit hole of the member for Carleton and his talking points.

I genuinely do not believe that the member thinks that the inflationary impact has to do with government spending. He must know that it has more to do with global issues such as the war in Ukraine and the fact that every other country in the developed world is also experiencing inflation. Can he not, perhaps, at least agree that there are other factors that contribute to inflation?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would note that my Liberal friends like me a lot more when I agree with them, but the member is patently wrong in this particular circumstance. We have heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada that inflationary borrowing and spending are exacerbating inflation. They are not the only reason; I will grant the member that. We have also heard from a former Liberal finance minister on the same topic, that excessive borrowing and inflationary spending are making things more expensive. We have heard from Scotiabank economists.

I am not making it up. I know that the member despises the member for Carleton, but the member for Carleton is absolutely correct, and he is not quoting his own numbers; he is quoting numbers we are hearing from the experts. I do not know why the Liberals do not agree with the experts, but the facts are there. I wish they would listen to them as opposed to their own Liberal talking points from the PMO.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague, who is almost from the north, but not quite.

The problem is that the Conservatives pretend that inflation just happened. I am looking at inflationary jumps that have happened for some time. For example, when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was Speaker, he held fundraisers for $125 a plate, including cigars, but four years on, it was $175 a plate with cigars. This is a huge inflationary jump—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member's comments are neither on the member's speech nor on the bill. I question the relevance.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would again remind members that speeches and comments should be related to the matter before the House. If the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay could make the link, that would be great.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to raise questions about the Conservatives' use of inflation to jump up prices for tickets when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was Speaker and holding fundraisers. There was a dramatic increase, and that needs to be explained. Were those global figures? Was it the Liberals, or was it the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not see the relationship to the bill before the House.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka wishes to weigh in on this, and whether he is able to relate it to the bill.

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was a little jumbled; I will grant you that, and I think you are quite justified in being confused by what the member was talking about.

The fact of the matter is that inflation has definitely been far worse over the last few years of the government. It has spiked because of exactly what I have been talking about. While inflation has always existed, it is certainly a lot worse now and has been exacerbated by the government.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to talk a little more about inflation and how it is affecting people, particularly working men and women right across this country, unionized or not. Maybe there is a message that he would like to share, especially in relation to the message from the member for Carleton, to let working people know there is some hope around the corner.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, the labour strife that exists in this country is, in large part, because life is too expensive. While the rights of workers to bargain collectively are important, it is also important for workers to be able to afford to put food on the table, heat their homes and drive to work if they need to do that, and the government is making these things more expensive with its inflationary spending and its carbon tax on everything.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. I am certainly very proud to rise on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, to end the practice in federally regulated workplaces of being able to bring in scab labour. This is something that New Democrats and the labour movement have fought many years for, and we are determined to make this a reality.

At the outset, I want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay who spoke about the history, because history is important. He mentioned the history of the Rossland miners and the Western Federation of Miners, and the transformation they brought across this country.

I am proud to be from Cobalt where the 17th district of the Western Federation of Miners was formed under Big Jim McGuire. The fact that the fight for the eight-hour day began in the mines of Cobalt on April 28, the international day of mourning for workers killed on the job, relates directly to the Cobalt Miners Union winning the right to workers' compensation in 1914.

My grandfather, Charlie Angus, died at the Hollinger Mine, and my other grandfather, Joe MacNeil, broke his back underground at the McIntyre Mine. Both were members of Mine Mill and then the Steelworkers. When I was growing up, anybody who came from a mining town had a relative who had been injured or killed on the job. However, organized labour fundamentally changed that.

The right of labour to organize, the right of labour to fight for a better future, is the history of our country and of the United States. They talk about the birth of the middle class in the United States as being the 1938 sit-down strike in Flint, Michigan where the auto workers were not going to put up with precarious work—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is mentioning the United States. We are dealing with Canadian legislation here. Why is he bringing up U.S. situations?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind hon. members, and I have mentioned this on a number of occasions, there is some leeway. As long as members bring it back to the bill and relate to the bill somehow, there is some leeway in the speeches.

On another point of order, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think you are going to see a pattern during the speech of the member for Timmins—James Bay. He is going to give a speech that is on topic, and we are going to see Conservatives stand up on bogus points of order. I would like the Chair to pay attention to this pattern.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That was more a point of debate. I want to remind members that, when they rise on points of order, it would be best for them to point out the standing order they are bringing a point of order on.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that they are trying to shut down a discussion on labour rights. We know the deep, anti-labour history of the Conservatives. If they do not want to know history, they can go have a walk around the block.

We know that the modern middle class was formed in Canada in 1945 at the Ford Windsor strike. That was a follow-up to what happened in 1938 in Flint, Michigan. What happened in Flint, Michigan, matters to Canada. Conservatives do not understand that, but it matters because it was the piece of Detroit that established the post-war consensus of labour, capital and government that started the biggest transformation of wealth and success in the history of the world. The movement of the working class from precarious crap jobs to stable housing, proper wages and pensions, came out of out those strikes.

In my region in 1941, the Kirkland Lake gold miners' strike was a brutal strike that won the right to collective bargaining. In 1973, it was the steelworkers going on strike again and again, and the wildcat strikes. Those were illegal strikes in Elliot Lake that forced fundamental changes to the workers' compensation acts everywhere. Health and safety became a fundamental issue because workers were dying on the job and they were not going to take it anymore.

This is our history. This is the history of New Democrats. This is the history of my family. The other history is a dark history and it begins in 1980 when we saw the planned destruction of the modern working class, middle class that was put in place by the gurus of the Conservative movement, like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Friedrich Hayek was so opposed to the growth of wealth of the North American working class that he wrote an essay calling for a planned depression. He wanted to force a depression on North America in order to break the backs of the working class. That was picked up by Ronald Reagan. That was picked up by Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve. It began in January 1980 with massive increases in interest rates that led to millions of jobs lost across the United States, and that spilled over into Canada.

What we saw then was that Ronald Reagan targeted the union movement and from then on, we started to see the loss of rights of workers, the loss of wages and the loss of security. In Canada, that effort was undertaken, but thankfully, we had the solid backing of some very strong labour leaders. At the time, Bob White and United Auto Workers, before it became Canadian Auto Workers, came out with a no-concessions policy. Under no circumstances were they going to give concessions. They stood up to Chrysler. They stood up to GM. They stood up at factory after factory to defend the rights of workers. We know that modern Conservatives would not support that. Bill Davis, who was an old-style Conservative, actually sided on a number of occasions, with the auto workers along the 401 belt to say that they did have rights, even at a time of massive job losses.

We saw the damage that was done from the 1980s on. We can count it in the lost wages and lost security. The neo-liberal attack on worker rights was so overwhelming. Let us talk about the RAND Corporation. Under the present Conservative leader, one might think the RAND Corporation is a rabid lefty, but it actually usually works for the U.S. military. The RAND Corporation did a study of economic inequality to deal with the issue of democratic instability in the United States.

Certainly, we have seen what is happening with MAGA, and the issue of economic precarity, the loss of the North American working class, and the creation of economic instability and political instability. From the period around 1980, when the attack on organized labour in the United States began, to what followed in Canada, we have, in the United States today, a Black worker making $26,000 less than they would if the 1980 wages remained constant. A college-educated worker is earning between $48,000 and $63,000 less a year. All that wealth, according to the RAND Corporation, was plundered directly for the benefit of the 1%.

What we are seeing is that it identified the loss of wages, pension security and benefits to be in the order of $50 trillion of lost money that belonged to the working and middle class. It was then was hoovered up and put in the pockets of the 1%. That is what created the political and economic instability of our age. In the United States, that loss of income means that for every worker, it lost $1,114 a month, for every single month for the last 40 years. That is what created MAGA.

Although we hear the Conservatives talking about inflation and how hard it is, we have seen no efforts by the Conservatives, ever, to stand with workers, ever to stand up on these issues, but this is the issue that has to be dealt with. This is why workers came to us again and again, to talk about anti-scab legislation so that we could restore the balance of negotiations with labour and management, the right of workers to have a seat at the table.

I want to quote Paul Mason from his book, Postcapitalism. This is a really instructive statement that:

the destruction of labour's bargaining power - was the essence of the entire [right-wing] project; it was a means to all the other ends. Neoliberalism’s guiding principle is not free markets, nor fiscal discipline, nor sound money, nor privatization and offshoring – not even globalization. All these things were byproducts or weapons of its main endeavour: to remove organized labour from the equation.

That was the whole Milton Friedman, Stephen Harper, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan agenda for the last 40 years. Guess what? Those days are over, because what we have seen in this past year is unprecedented victory for workers' rights.

Remember, just a few years ago, Bill Morneau, the privatized pension king in Canada, “bill no more”, told young workers to get used to it and that they should suck it up as precarious, crappy, gig jobs are the new normal. That was the new normal for Bill Morneau. Then what happened? We got COVID. We had to break up supply chains and we had a young generation of workers who said they were not going to put up with crappy work. They started to walk off the job, to refuse to take the job or to organize.

In this past year, the UAW, in their strikes against the big three, ended the tiered wages that were forced on them in the eighties and the nineties. Unifor won the biggest wage increase in their history of negotiations with Ford. When the Hollywood writers went on strike, everyone they thought they would cave. They did not. They won three times the original offer that was put on the table.

We are seeing young people organizing at Tesla, Amazon and Starbucks. They know they cannot count on right-wing governments to protect their interests. They are going to organize; they have a right to be at the table.

The worst thing that we can do is to allow scab labour to come into our workplaces to try and undermine their rights to restore balance and to have proper wages, proper pensions and proper housing. That is going to be fought by organized labour. This bill has to pass. We support it as New Democrats.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I believe that anti-scab legislation will promote more harmony in our labour force, which will help out in terms of issues like inflation. I know the member is concerned about inflation because earlier today he posed a question in regard to inflation. I did not quite catch the reference he was making. Could he expand on the reference when he was talking about the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the issue of inflation?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was a question that was raised as my colleague from Burnaby had attempted unanimous consent to bring forward documents about fundraisers done by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I had noticed a pattern of increasing prices for what he was charging, such as $175 for a dinner and shooting and, back by popular demand, cigar and scotch tasting, a great chance to chat with fellow Conservatives while sampling fine scotches and cigars, and of course shooting guns. That was our former Speaker, being very partisan.

I am concerned about the inflationary aspects because the price of his fundraising dinners as a former Speaker certainly jumped up to be pretty high in price.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not quite sure how that relates to the bill before the House. I know there was a reference to being inflationary, but I do want to remind members to try to stay on topic.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, neither the question nor the answer was relevant to what we are discussing, but I was listening carefully to the member's speech and I appreciate his historical narrative. He rightly said that the things that affect workers are inflation and high interest rates.

Why has he, as a member along with the NDP, supported the Liberals' inflationary policies of spending; increasing our debt; creating an excess of cash in our economy to make the things that money buys cost more? Why has he not stood up against what the Liberals are doing in creating inflation, resulting in high interest rates?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I am not quite sure how that relates to the bill before the House, but I will allow the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to respond to that, if he wants to.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to wish my colleague and his family a very merry Christmas.

He does ask a legitimate question. How can we trust the Liberals? I do not know how many times, on anti-scab legislation, it has been like Lucy and the football. The Liberals would come out and tell everybody in the labour movement to not worry and that they had their backs, and then my God, as soon as the vote came, they would all sneak out by the backbench and leave.

That is a really important question. How can we trust Liberals? We cannot, but the great thing is that, as we are in a minority government, they are going to have to work with us if they want to keep their jobs, so we got dental care. I know the Conservatives do not want dental care, but we got that. We got anti-scab. We are going to get pharmacare. It is a good point that one cannot turn one's back on them for a minute. If one falls asleep in the boat with the Liberals, one will be waking up swimming with the fishes. However, we are going to hold them to account.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I noticed during the debate today that there has been a certain amount of avoidance from the Conservatives to talk about Bill C-58.

Going back to the Stephen Harper days, I can remember those two private members' bills. One made it harder for unions to certify and one subjected unions to more stringent financial controls than businesses ever had to deal with, as well as all of the back-to-work legislation. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could talk about his time during those dark days and how the Stephen Harper government went after unions, went after workers with a vengeance, and how we still see some of the same crowd here today.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, history is important. It tells us how we got here, and I certainly we remember Stephen Harper and his continual attack on workers.

What worries me today is that, when we see investments such as those in the Stellantis plant, the Conservatives are always speaking up about it as though it is scab labour. Investments at Stellantis are not scab labour. We need to invest in a new battery economy or it is all going stateside to the United States. If we do not invest in this new economy, we are going to be left behind, so I am always shocked the Conservatives are undermining the new EV technology, which is going to have a big transformative effect, and the Conservatives are using it in speeches on scab labour. Someone is going to have to give them some basic lessons in labour.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a great honour to join in this debate in the chamber. Before I get into the meat of the issue with Bill C-58, I would like to extend, to all the people who work in this chamber and also those who will be working in the other place after, a very merry Christmas. It is that time of year. While there does not seem to be a lot of charity in this room right now towards one another, I do hope that, when we are back in our ridings and have had a moment to acclimatize ourselves to our communities, we have that spirit.

A previous member talked about the need to help support people who are experiencing massive inflation and how difficult it is for many of our residents, whether they be pensioners on fixed incomes, families that have work or families that do not. This is a very tough economy. Right now, as we see with the food banks, this is a very tough time. I would encourage all Canadians to do what they can, if they are in a position to help.

Prior to writing down a few comments from my notes on this debate, I took some time to review some of the other comments in Hansard on this particular topic. It was very interesting to note that, when the Liberals had a majority, from 2015 to 2019, they had very little enthusiasm for a bill of this nature. More so, recently, since the Liberals have had a sudden interest in this bill, I have noticed a pattern. Often, when a Liberal member speaks to this bill on the topic of replacement workers, that conversation quickly shifts to what the leader of the official opposition, the Conservatives, has to think or say about this bill.

In reading the comments from various Liberal members, it is almost as if the bill is more about what the Leader of the Opposition would do then it is about banning replacement workers. Never before has the Liberal government appeared more obsessed with wondering how the opposition leader will respond. Further to that, I could almost hear some tears from the Prime Minister's office when they learned the opposition's view on this bill. We keep getting questions from people on the other side about it. We have been taking our time to study the legislation because this applies to every single category under federal workers.

I have not seen, in my time as a member of Parliament, a massive strike at a federally regulated bank. Nor have I seen it in some of the other sectors. Let us just bear in mind that, of the total workforce, this legislation would only apply to roughly 10%, or less. We might lament that there are not more federally regulated workers, but each one of those workers is important. Many of them might ask if the legislation would materially affect their situation.

We might have different views or perspectives from different industries, including the nuclear industry. I have not done that outreach with those folks who are federally regulated and who would be expected to work under this. It is probably because it has not been number one on their minds.

However, what I have heard in my own riding, and I am sure many are federally regulated workers, particularly those who are, we would say, middle class and those who are working hard to join it, is they find themselves in a precarious situation. Why is that? Interest rates have gone up. Those who are fortunate enough to have a home are asking if they can maintain that home as their mortgage comes due for renewal. That is a difficult decision because, even if someone has to sell their home, where do they go? Right now, rents have doubled under the Liberal government. Regardless of whether people work where the applications of Bill C-58 would apply to them or not, that is not going to help them materially with that decision.

There are other people who are working and who do not have a home. They are either subject to precarious situations, where they are renting, oftentimes putting themselves there just so they can put a roof over their head, not knowing when that will come due. Many of them are young and have dreams of home ownership. That has been washed away by this economy under this particular government. They see and hear articles, and little snippets oftentimes online, where the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that inflation could be better if there was not contrary monetary policy to fiscal policy.

Fiscal policy is the direct area of the government. People wonder if their government is really on their side. The Liberals can put up things like Bill C-58 to say that, but that still does not materially help people deal with it.

Again, there is the issue of gas prices and the issue of groceries, and we all know that the carbon tax affects that greatly. We have all heard about that Ottawa mushroom farm and the $100,000 carbon tax bill. The Prime Minister has been asked five times about how that bill gets paid, and he cannot answer. The rest of us all know that the bill simply gets handed to customers. Many of them are those very same workers that the government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have not seen any news that says that there is a strike at that mushroom farm, so I am not sure what the member is talking about. We are dealing with anti-scab legislation and not mushroom farms.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate and not a point of order. I would remind members that, when they rise on points of order, they should indicate which standing order they are rising on.

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the mushroom farm, we know that the bill simply gets handed down to customers and makes those Ontario-grown mushrooms that much more expensive, which is causing the issue that we see today in Canada's labour market where, right now, when there are open negotiations, unions are rightfully saying that the cost of living has gone up. Of course, there is pressure for those workers to receive more. That is the reason we are here today. It is because the current government ultimately has created an environment where it does not work.

Instead of actually addressing the issue by reducing its inflationary deficits, and instead of getting rid of its plan to quadruple the carbon tax, essentially raising it by 62¢ a litre, which are things that would tangibly affect every single Canadian, including those who are federally regulated under this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-58, the Liberals just decided to throw this out. It is something that they opposed long before. That is why we cannot let workers and Canadians and families fall behind. We know that the always-spending Liberal-NDP costly coalition will continue to be part of the problem and not the solution.

Getting back to the bill, this legislation would potentially impact some of Canada's largest airports and ports far more severely in big cities like Montreal than it would in any city in my riding. That is not to say that labour disruptions in federally regulated sectors do not have an impact across our country, as they most certainly do. However, I am just recognizing that some of Canada's largest cities, most often represented by MPs from the government side, will typically deal with a federal labour disruption first-hand far more than those of us who have rural communities in our ridings.

Therefore, as a B.C.-based MP who represents some federally regulated workers, I do ask these questions about the government's approach. Instead of addressing the main concerns about the inflation that we are suffering, why are the Liberals not addressing the root causes instead of just finding these small bills that affect only a very small amount of our population? Increasingly, with the Liberal government, we see that it is totally out of touch with where Canadians are struggling. When I see Canadians, particularly the citizens in my riding, in coffee shops, they will often simply say, “Where are my tax dollars going now? Are you getting good value for money?” The answer is that we just do not know.

For example, in Ontario, there are two different electric vehicle plants. I, as a Conservative, love to see different competing technologies fight to see who has the best mousetrap to serve the population. However, when we suddenly add the extra element where the taxpayer and the government are writing big cheques to subsidize certain activities, we start to come to the place where people resent that they do not know the business case, do not know what the contract is for these large deals and that we are bringing in people from outside of Canada. In my province, when B.C. LNG was proposed, I met with union representatives who said their members were prepared to work and have the expertise, even though they had not done one before. They included boilermakers, etc. They all wanted those jobs, yet we are not in the position for that today.

Rather than working for Canadian jobs and Canadian know-how, putting it to work and using tax dollars for a better outcome, what do we get? We get a government that is focused on the wrong things and not giving those opportunities to Canadians. Instead, its members are hiding at committee with the help of other parties, such as the NDP, to block those contracts from being presented. I lament that. I do hope that we have another chance to debate this bill so we can get into the meat of it.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), it is only the government that can bring bills for debate.

In her statement on Thursday last week, the government House leader stated that the government would give priority to bills in the House “in their final stages of debate” including Bill—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is this another point of order?

I am going to see where the hon. member is going with this. I will come back to the parliamentary secretary as soon as the hon. member is done.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government House leader said that they would give “priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57”, so you can imagine my surprise—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Can the hon. member again indicate which standing order he is speaking on? Is this a unanimous consent motion? Is this a point of order on something that arose in the House?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is Standing Order 30(6), which sets out that the government is the only one that can call bills for debate. I have a point of order on that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I need to hear the point of order. The hon. member has not told me if he is looking for unanimous consent yet. Is the hon. member asking for unanimous consent?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order and then I am going to move a motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to get an understanding of what the hon. member is asking. If he is tabling a motion and asking for unanimous consent, he needs to be careful not to go into a lot of detail.

I will go to the hon. member so I can have an understanding of what he is asking, because I am not quite sure yet.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to get there, but I keep getting interrupted by members of the Liberal Party.

I was saying that only the government can choose bills to come forward for debate. It has stated that Bill C-57 is a bill it urgently wants to be concluded in the House. It has not called it for debate today, so—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member can bring a unanimous consent motion.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am now going to, assuming that I have the unanimous support of the House, move that, notwithstanding any—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. Hold on.

The hon. member is able to move a unanimous consent motion if he wishes to. I will allow him to ask for unanimous consent. If there is none, then we will move forward and continue with the debate.

I would ask the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon for the unanimous consent motion.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is already no unanimous consent. It is obvious that somewhere along the line something went wrong. I would ask members who are looking for unanimous consent to make sure they have it from all parties before they come to the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to patterns. One of the patterns that I have seen is with respect to the Conservative Party having adopted the MAGA politics, which are coming from the south into the office of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Conservatives say one thing, for example, that they support workers, yet none of them stood up to say how they were going to—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite is bringing U.S. politics into something that does not even relate to what we are discussing here today, so—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we all know the degree to which there is a lack of respect for organized labour from the MAGA right. This is something on which we have been challenging the Conservative opposition party.

What will Conservatives do with respect to Bill C-58? Will they or will they not support the legislation? They have not been able to answer that question. I suspect, if it has anything to do with their pattern, it is because of the MAGA movement from the States that is coming to Canada via the Conservative Party.

Can the member say whether or not he is voting in favour of the bill?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I start talking about the very real concerns of federally regulated, provincially regulated and average, non-unionized workers, the member somehow tries to make it some sort of conspiracy theory. When the member starts spouting what seem to be conspiracy theories about how this is connected to this group and this group is connected to this group in the south, it sounds a little crazy to me.

If we cannot clearly express what our constituents are going through, the challenges they have and whether the government legislation is meeting the real needs of the people I mentioned, what else do we have to talk about here?

The member can keep asking those kinds of questions in disrespectful ways, or he can start to listen and not name-call.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question as to whether our Conservative colleagues are in favour of this bill to prevent the use of scabs in the event of a labour dispute, strike or lockout is certainly relevant. It is a simple question.

The reason this bill is under consideration now is that, for decades, the Bloc Québécois has been lobbying for governments to pass anti-scab legislation. This is also happening because thousands of workers are pressuring the government.

We have had similar legislation in Quebec since 1977. In Canada, however, it took significant pressure for this bill to see the light of day.

Will you tell workers that you support the anti-scab legislation proposed by Bill C-58, yes or no?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that she must address her questions and comments through the Chair, and not directly to the hon. member.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the record to show that the member for Dufferin—Caledon tried to have the House pass Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal, and the Liberals refused to pass it. That is what Conservatives were putting forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Number one, Madam Speaker, that is not a point of order. No such question was put to the House. I would suggest the ruling on the member's point of order is that it is not a point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is becoming debate.

If hon. members want to continue having a conversation about this, they should take it into the lobby, please.

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, my command of the French language is not the best, but I will try to answer the Bloc Québécois member's question.

With regard to Bill C-58, what is important for me, as a western MP, is to fully understand how this works in Quebec. That is a question I will be asking Conservative Party members from Quebec. I hope I will have a clear answer for the member.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that when someone else has the floor, it is nice to give him the attention he deserves, especially when he made such an effort to respond in French. Members on both sides of the House were having conversations, and I would remind them to respect those who have the floor. It is good to hear what they have to say because members may have other questions for them.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I find it very hard to connect the member's speech to the subject in front of us. I suspect that is because the Conservatives do not really want to take a position on the anti-scab legislation because they are busy posing as friends of labour.

By talking about inflation, is the member actually saying that it is workers' wages that are driving inflation? The Conservatives have been arguing all the time that it is the carbon tax. When we look at what is driving inflation, we find it is the war in Ukraine and the increasing greed of corporate profits in the gas and oil industry.

Is the member, by focusing on inflation, saying it is the workers' fault inflation is happening?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

I am sure the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola has been in the House long enough to be able to answer without having anybody else try to do that for him.

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola has the floor.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I like how you think.

I would simply say to my fellow member from British Columbia, first of all, I understand he is not going to be running for re-election. I have always respected his contributions to this place, and I just want to put that on the record and wish him a merry Christmas when we go.

On the inflationary deficits, the carbon tax, the addition of things where we have plastic bans that are now being looked at for the packaging of foods, we have a government that seems to always have one dial, which is to spend, spend, spend. As we know from listening to macroeconomists, adding more fuel to the inflationary fire is not going to help deal with inflation. In fact, the government seems intent on doing that, which is why we have continued to press the government to address those core issues.

If I am not considered a friend of labour, I want to be. I try to listen to all views, whether they come from my riding or not, and I want to put all Canadians to work in meaningful and safe work.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House of Commons today to speak about Bill C-58, the bill that would ban the use of replacement workers.

What this legislation would really do is strengthen workers and unions by strengthening one of the pillars of people power, the bargaining table. I come from a proud union town, a proud union town that knows how to build things. For over 100 years, we have been building cars and machines and tools for Canada, and we are darn good at it. What our unionized workers, brothers and sisters, have also built is a strong community of resilient and caring people who look after each other, and not only look after each other but fight for one another.

One of the ways we have been able to build this caring and generous community is through the bargaining table, with hard-won victories that improved wages, working conditions, health and safety and workers' rights and that provided time off to be with families.

In 1945, 14,000 Windsor auto workers at Ford went on strike. For 99 days they protested layoffs, unfair wages and working conditions, and after 99 days, they prevailed. Those Windsor workers stabilized the labour movement in Canada and provided the labour movement in Canada with a gift. It is called the Rand formula, which establishes and protects a union's right to collect union dues.

Every September, thousands of residents march in the Labour Day parade to celebrate all of the hard wins of the past and all of the hard wins of the present, while also recommitting to the next fight on the horizon to improve the lives of workers. I was proud to walk with Unifor, LiUNA, IBEW, the millwrights, teachers, nurses and so many others who work hard to provide for their families but also work hard to build their communities.

I want to take a moment to thank the Unifor bargaining committee that entered tough negotiations with Ford, Stellantis and General Motors just this October. Those were tough negotiations, tough bargaining, and our unions came away with the largest wage and pension increases in generations. Those hard-fought and hard-won improvements not only lift our auto workers but they lift our entire community.

That is the power of the bargaining table, and that is the power we are protecting here today with Bill C-58. It is the power of the bargaining table that we are strengthening.

In the last two years, our Liberal government has worked hand in hand with unions and workers to deliver some of the biggest wins in the history of our community of Windsor—Tecumseh. It is true solidarity. Together, we delivered the EV battery plant, which is just one example, the single-largest auto investment in the history of our community of Windsor—Tecumseh.

To understand the significance of the battery plant investment and to understand the importance of labour and the bargaining table and working together in that partnership, one has to understand the road my community has travelled—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I have an important UC request for a motion on Bill C-57 that I think the House will want to hear: That, notwithstanding any standing order—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would again ask members that if they want to table unanimous consent motions, they should be conferring with all other parties ahead of time to ensure that, when they bring a motion for unanimous consent, they are getting unanimous consent.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, to understand the significance of the battery plant investment and to understand the importance of the partnership with labour and the importance of the bargaining table, we have to understand the road that my community has travelled these last 10 years. It was a hard road.

Eight years ago, when the Conservatives were in power, Windsor had an unemployment rate of 11.2%. Unemployment for young people was in the high twenties. Families were leaving Windsor for Alberta to find work in the oil sands. Under the Conservatives, Canada lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Of course, our community was ground zero for that devastation.

I remember those days. I remember the shuttered storefronts, the empty downtown, the “for sale” signs everywhere and the not-for-profits and charitable organizations struggling because they could not find volunteers because the donations had dried up. The Leader of the Opposition also remembers because he was the employment minister at the time, or as I like to call him, the minister of unemployment.

The battery plant that our Liberal government delivered, together with unions, workers and industry, is the single most important investment in the history of our community, with 2,500 full-time jobs for workers, 2,500 Canadian, local, unionized workers. It is our future. It is our hope. It is powered by strong unions. It is powered by strong workers. It is powered by—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for King—Vaughan has a point of order.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member referred to our leader as “the minister of unemployment”. That is false. There is no such title. What is he talking about?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate. It is an interpretation. I understand what the hon. member is raising, and I want to remind members that it causes disorder in the House.

I would ask the hon. member to not use that framing again. It does cause disorder in the House.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will rephrase that by saying there are members in my community who refer to the Leader of the Opposition as “the minister of unemployment”. That is what members of my community—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I understand what the member is saying, but it is causing disorder in the House.

This happens on both sides of the House, and I would ask members to please be respectful and judicious when they are speaking about other members. There is a standing order that specifically says we should not be speaking disrespectfully about members in the House.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is rising on a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to those comments, first, if you check Hansard, you will find that the Speaker did rule, in accordance with Standing Order 18, that there would be no false titles in this House. That is clear. Second, the member did directly what you told him not to do. That is grounds for being expelled.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are at the end of the session. I know it has been a long session and I know that everyone wants to go home and be cheerful. Let us finish this on a really good note.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, investment in the battery plant in Windsor is just the start. There are international companies right on our doorstep right now looking to invest $3 billion and to create thousands of more jobs. They want to supply the battery plant here.

This is why we are partnering with local unions to do everything we can to fight the Conservative campaign of disinformation. That campaign has one goal and one goal only, which is to erode public support for these investments and ultimately to pull the plug on the battery plant and pull the plug on the electric vehicle industry. The Conservatives do not believe in climate change. They do not believe in the transition to electric vehicles. They see electric vehicles as an existential threat. What is more, they call this federal Liberal investment “corporate welfare”.

Dave Cassidy, the president of Unifor Local 444, was on Parliament Hill two weeks ago. He represents thousands of auto workers, and he will represent the 2,500 workers who will be building the batteries at our EV battery plant, these Canadian, local, unionized workers. He said on Parliament Hill that if it were up to the Conservatives, the battery plant would never have been built in the first place. Thank God it was not up to them.

Liberals believe in climate change. We believe in the transition to electric vehicles. We believe in investing in workers and battery plants like ours. We believe in investing in manufacturing communities like mine. Most importantly, we believe in a true partnership with labour, with workers and with industry to attract game-changing investments that are creating a future for manufacturing communities like ours in Windsor—Tecumseh. However, it all begins by listening to workers, by making sure that workers are not just at the bargaining table but at every table to provide input on the policies that impact them.

Our Liberal government listens to workers. It is why the first thing we did when we were elected was to scrap two Harper Conservative pieces of legislation whose sole purpose was to weaken unions: Bill C-377 and Bill C-575.

We listened to workers when we introduced $10-a-day child care and 10 days of paid sick leave, and when we invested $1 billion in apprentices to train the next generation of skilled workers. We doubled the union training and innovation program, and we committed to the first-ever labour provisions for clean-tech tax credits, which will make federal investments conditional on companies paying a prevailing union wage, and to making sure that at least 10% of the work goes to apprentices.

We listened to unions when we introduced the labour mobility tax credit for up to $4,000 in travel expenses for workers having to travel to a job site away from home. It is why last week we established the union-led advisory table to inform government decisions on all issues impacting workers. It is also why we introduced Bill C-58, something that workers in Canada and in my hometown of Windsor—Tecumseh have been asking for, have been fighting for, for generations.

This is the right thing to do. Strong workers and strong unions are powering our prosperity. A strong government that is a strong partner stands with our unions, with our workers and with labour every step of the way.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were consultations among the parties about a motion to expedite the vote on Bill C-57 so that the House can pronounce—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That was ruled on already. This is the third or fourth time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is obvious that those who have been trying to move unanimous consent motions have not followed the proper procedure, which is going from party to party to gather unanimous consent. I would ask members to do that prior to bringing their unanimous consent motion to the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to applaud Bill C‑58, the anti-scab legislation. People have been waiting decades for this bill.

I am a Quebecker, and our anti-scab legislation was already in place when I was born. Now, a bill has been introduced. I would not go so far as to say that I was hoping for this back when I was two, but I will say that I have been waiting for it for decades.

The Bloc Québécois has been waiting for it, too. The Bloc Québécois has introduced several bills in the decades since 1990. My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who is still in the House, introduced the first bill on this subject. He was actually my MP at the time. Since then, 11 bills have been placed on the Order Paper, evidence that the Bloc Québécois is determined to protect workers and protect the right to negotiate.

I want to thank all the Bloc Québécois MPs and teams before us who strove to advance the issue of justice and workers' rights. I would also like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who introduced Bill C-276 at the start of this Parliament. Her bill also seeks to ban the use of strikebreakers. My colleague worked tirelessly, just like the others I mentioned earlier. I commend her. She is persevering and willing to collaborate, someone who believes in social justice and who has a lot to teach the members of my caucus and, I hope, the other members of the House and all the people she meets and talks to about labour issues in particular.

There is an expression that I like a lot, and I use it whenever I can, although it is not mine, of course. It is the idea that, whenever we do something great, we were often building on the work of those who came before us. We are often dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, if I may use a mythological or fairy tale image. We owe a lot to our predecessors. There are also other people who worked to pave the way for what we have achieved at this moment in history.

There are other political parties. I would like to acknowledge the work of the NDP on this matter, as well as the unions. When I say unions, I also mean workers. They are the giants. They are the ones who came to us and showed us the value, the necessity, of passing laws to protect the right to negotiate. I would like to thank all the people who got us here today. I hope that this will move faster through the House than it has in recent decades. It is urgent.

At the start of my speech, I mentioned that Quebec has had a law on the books since 1976. I am sure we can come up with something equivalent for areas under federal jurisdiction. Time is of the essence.

A bill has been introduced. We were waiting for it. In the current context, we are theoretically two years away from an election. We would like the work to move forward, for things to happen quickly. Of course, there is filibustering in the House, but we hope that within the next two years, the bill will be passed, will receive royal assent and will come into force immediately. However, the bill has `an 18-month time frame. Why 18 months? We have been waiting for a bill for 50 years. Why can it not be implemented immediately? That is the first question. I think it is an essential question that we are asking.

We are also concerned about the part of the bill that sets out exceptions. We are still wary of the exceptions. Of course, it is relevant, but we still have to define what a “threat to the life, health or safety of any person” means. At first glance, it looks like it is intended to provide protection. We are not against virtue, but we also do not want this clause to become a kind of catch-all clause that allows employers to circumvent the bill and get out of having to uphold workers' right to freely negotiate.

Those are two elements I wanted to mention. The Bloc Québécois sees them as red flags. We would like to get answers very quickly. I presume that could be done in committee. If we can deal with these two elements that we have concerns about, we think the bill could be passed very quickly. I repeat, we want it to be passed and to receive royal assent, but we also want it to come into force as soon as it receives royal assent so we can protect as many workers as possible by defending their rights.

I spoke about equity and rights, and I would like to touch on that again. Reduced to its simplest expression, the bill simply aims to level the playing field. If one of the parties to the negotiations has all the power, it is difficult for the other party to assert their needs, desires and rights. I think it is almost a truism, it is so obvious. What we want to do is to restore the balance of power so that workers can also participate in the negotiations. This will allow them to reach a compromise solution quickly and effectively at the bargaining table, which would be a win-win. It is good for workers, but also for employers, which, in my opinion, have everything to gain from a law that will allow the parties to sit at the table and settle disputes quickly.

I have managed to address only three of the 10 points I wanted to get to, so I will pick up the pace.

I would remind members that the holidays are approaching and that the Bloc Québécois has always been a workers' party. We have always tried to defend workers. Manicouagan is a riding where there are a lot of workers under federal jurisdiction, in particular in the air and rail transport sectors. There are also a lot of people who work for the post office. There are workers under federal jurisdiction everywhere in Quebec and Canada, but there are a lot in my riding. I think about them, about the people in Quebec City and the dock workers at the Port of Québec, for example, who have been in a labour dispute for more than a year now. This dispute has been going on for a long time and it cannot be settled, precisely because there is an unfair power relationship. The employer has more power than the employees.

I would also like to remind my colleagues in the opposition of the following. I do not want to put words in the mouth of my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, but I think he said earlier that he was worried that workers would cause inflation as a result of their demands in the negotiations for a new collective agreement. I find that kind of talk dangerous. I would like him to discuss the matter with his Conservative colleagues from the Quebec City region, who are likely, if I am not mistaken, to join him in voting against this bill. They would be voting against the people in the ridings adjacent to the Quebec City region, who have already been paying the price for more than a year because MPs do not want to vote for a bill that would level the playing field in labour negotiations.

I will conclude with this. I hope that the Conservatives will get around to telling us their position on the bill soon. That being said, the Bloc Québécois will give the bill its full support, because we care about workers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the issue of anti-scab legislation has been important to me and I know to many of my colleagues for many years. It is encouraging to have the legislation before us. It was an election platform issue for the Liberal Party, and inside the chamber we have substantial support for it from the Bloc and the NDP. Even the Conservatives, when they go around the country, often say they are there for the working person. I think we have a wonderful opportunity here to see this debate collapse and send the bill to committee.

I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on my perspective. How nice would it be to see the debate collapse today so the bill will at least have a chance to go to committee sooner as opposed to later? I think that would be a wonderful gift at Christmas for the labour movement in Canada. Would she agree?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a few things to say to the member for Winnipeg North about his comment.

First, there is a difference between words and actions. Yes, that was part of the Liberal Party's election platform. However, it is important to consider the number of years that the Liberals were in power over the past 40 years and the number of years that they formed a majority government, when they could have implemented such a bill but did not.

I understand that it can be a long process, but results have to be achieved at some point. That is often what happens with minority governments. It is a bit like being at the bargaining table. When one person does not have all the power, then we can negotiate and make compromises and find solutions for people.

Of course, I agree with my colleague that this would be a nice Christmas gift. I, too, would like to be able to say that the Liberal Party kept its election promises regarding employment insurance reform. I know a lot of people in my riding of Manicouagan are going to be facing the spring gap this year. I am sure that is also true for other people across Canada. For 40 years, since Lloyd Axworthy's time, the government has been promising reforms to help people who have to face the spring gap.

That would be an excellent Christmas gift, and so I am waiting for that reform.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech. Of course, I recognize that she and her political party have long supported legislation to prevent replacement workers. We in the NDP are very proud to have forced the Liberals to make that happen. It was an essential condition of the agreement we negotiated with them. Let us not forget that the Liberals have always voted against such bills in the past.

While there are things my colleague and I agree on, such as the benefits of this bill, there are Quebeckers who are currently suffering from the absence of such a bill. I am thinking of the dock workers at the Port of Quebec, as well the Videotron employees in western Quebec, in Gatineau, who are in a labour dispute.

Is my colleague prepared, before the law is enacted, to speak out against employers who use replacement workers, like the Port of Québec or Pierre Karl Péladeau?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to repeat it for my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie: We want it to be fair, we want there to be a balance of power.

In my mind, there are no exceptions. We are talking about a bill. In the end, it is really what we want. I am focusing on the principle: We want a balance of power, fairness. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants, and we will be prepared to support the bill.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for the hard work she does for workers in her riding and the bills she has introduced for them over the years.

I would like her thoughts on Bill C‑58, on its urgency and the good news it offers. In the meantime, there are flaws in this bill, including the 18-month requirement. Is that really necessary? Is there no way for this to come into force immediately?

My colleague told us that her notes list 10 points, but she only got to the third one. I would like to know what her eighth point was.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member has 45 seconds remaining to answer the question.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to go through my notes. I always have a plethora of ideas. Of course, I agree with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue on the timeline. It does not hold water.

We are ready. We have been for 50 years, likely. We are voting for the bill and then we are off to the races. Any questions on that 18‑month delay can be asked when the bill is in committee. This could come into force quickly. I do not think this is complicated. We have seen the government act very quickly when it wants to. I think it is a matter of will and not a matter of whether it is possible.

I cannot say what my eighth point was. We can talk about it later since I am out of time. We are ready to vote.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, it is great to stand here today with a great piece of legislation that is going to help out Canadian workers and help our economy get to the next level. We believe that Canadian workers have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations, where replacement workers are not waiting in the wings to take their jobs.

That is why we have introduced this legislation, to ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. I have negotiated on both sides of the table, for the employer and for the union. I know for a fact that the best deals are always at the table. I know for sure that banning replacement workers puts that focus on the table to get the best deals possible.

This is where workers get those powerful paycheques that our Conservatives like to talk about. It is where Canadian workers secure reliable benefits and job security. The bargaining table is where Canadian workers secure changes and investments that make their workplaces much safer.

The threat of replacement workers tips the balance in the employers' favour. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of true collective bargaining. Ultimately, replacement workers give employers an incentive to avoid the bargaining table. It is a distraction that can prolong disputes and can poison workplaces for years after. We have seen it throughout our history, both locally in my riding and across Canada.

Conservatives like to perpetuate the myth that workers want to strike. They pretend that workers have some devious plan to halt our economy. This could not be further from the truth. Workers drive our economy. Positive labour relations make Canada a great place to invest, which we have seen so much of recently.

Striking is a last resort for workers. Nobody wants to lose their benefits and live off strike pay. It is an anxious, uncertain state for anyone. It can hurt a family's financial and psychological well-being. Our government believes that it is in everybody's best interest to ensure that workers, employers and the government work together to build a strong, stable and fair economy that we all rely on.

Unlike the Conservatives, we will not feel threatened when workers use their bargaining power to demand better wages and better working conditions. As the Minister of Labour has said, bargaining is hard work. It is tense and messy, but it works really well.

I met regularly with my constituents about labour issues, including the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council and the United Steelworkers, just to name a few. They are thrilled that we are doing this at a federal level. They want to see the same kind of leadership to benefit provincial workers in Ontario as well.

Just last week, I was at the Standing Committee on International Trade, where Robert Ashton, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, said the following: “If Bill C-58 had actually been in use for the last couple of years, all these lockouts and these strikes, where the employers have been using scabs and have drawn it out, would have been a lot shorter.”

He joined a chorus of union leaders who supported this legislation. This includes the United Steelworkers Union, which reported, “Federal anti-scab legislation will help 80,000 USW members and approximately one million workers across Canada.”

Lana Payne, the national president of Unifor, said, “This legislation is a step toward levelling the playing field. It will be good for the economy and good for labour relations”.

I know the opposition does not listen to workers, but maybe the Conservatives might listen to the 70 labour experts who signed an open letter calling on Canadian policy-makers to support Bill C-58. The letter states, “By adopting Bill C-58, Parliament has a historic opportunity to advance workers' rights and improve labour relations in federally-regulated workplaces by:

“Strengthening the collective bargaining process and levelling the playing field in contract disputes;

“Banning the use of strikebreakers that inflame tensions and poison workplaces [for very long periods of time];

“Reducing instances of picket violence and vandalism;

“Incentivizing employers to focus on reaching negotiated settlements at the bargaining table rather than strategizing over how to best undermine union members exercising their right to strike.

“Bill C-58 offers practical and meaningful measures that would help to address longstanding imbalances in the labour relations regime.”

We have heard from experts, from labour leaders and from Canadian workers. We have also heard from members of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, who have expressed their support for this legislation. However, we have not heard from the Conservatives. In fact, today, the CLC continues to issue statements calling on the Conservatives to tell us what their position is.

It is no surprise that the Conservative leader, who has spent his entire career standing against working people, has not shown his hand. He proclaimed himself dedicated to bringing the right-to-work laws to Canada. These notorious U.S. laws are aimed at undermining unions; ultimately, they are about worse conditions and smaller paycheques. The Leader of the Opposition has enthusiastically served wealthy interests most of his life. Under the previous government, he championed two of the most anti-union, anti-worker bills that the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We repealed them right away. In 2005, he even opposed child care, because the workers would be unionized.

Actions speak louder than words. Recently, the Conservatives have been opposing Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, which would bring workers to the table so that workers decide how we meet our economic opportunities. Instead, the Conservatives submitted 20,000 amendments at committee and then tried to submit another couple of hundred frivolous amendments to put the brakes on it. The race is on to seize the greatest opportunity of our time, which is to unlock the potential of renewables, to create thousands of jobs and to drive sustainable economic growth. Right now, companies are deciding where to invest and build. The Liberal government is meeting this momentum, but the Conservatives are throwing temper tantrums.

Now Conservatives, again, have not told us where they stand with respect to Bill C-58. In fact, in 2016, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan opposed similar legislation, arguing that replacement workers offered opportunities for the unemployed to gain temporary work and valuable experience. Think about being so out of touch with working Canadians that one thinks temporary jobs to replace working Canadians are somehow a solution. More recently, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster complained that similar legislation would result in a higher share of company profits going to unionized workers. In a time of record corporate profits, it is hard to imagine being upset that working Canadians might get a greater share of the profits that they are responsible for producing.

We know how important this legislation is to Canada's labour unions and the workers they represent. We know that experts support this bill. The bill has the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. I urge my Conservative colleagues to reconsider their efforts to oppose working Canadians and consider, just this once, actually supporting workers.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to presenting reports from interparliamentary delegations to allow me to table a report from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, we know, from information from various sources, that thousands of employees from Korea and other places will be coming in to take jobs that are subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. If my colleague had had an opportunity to be at the drafting table for this piece of legislation, would he have put in something to ensure that foreign workers would not be getting the largesse from the publicly funded investments into electric vehicle battery plants here in Canada? Why are we not actually protecting Canadians with an investment using Canadian tax dollars?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. It has been called for by Canadian workers since before Canada was even a country. It would absolutely strengthen this economy and continue to grow our country, the greatest place to work, live and play. I can say that we did a lot of consulting. We consulted with workers, with labour representatives, with employers and with indigenous communities, who helped us craft this very important legislation. It is long overdue, and I would ask that member to support Bill C-58.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy holiday and a good vacation to everyone in the House, but mostly to the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, who have worked so hard over the past year. I hope they get time with their loved ones. I wish the same for my colleague who just made his speech, because I know him well enough to wish him a merry Christmas.

If we know each other well enough to wish each other a merry Christmas, I imagine we know each other well enough to provide really good, accurate answers. That is the gift I want this holiday season. I would like for him to explain, in all honesty and frankness, the rationale behind this 18-month delay. Quebec has had equivalent legislation for 47 years, which means that workers' rights are not equal. It works very well in Quebec.

How is it that the government ends up introducing this bill after years of promises and then imposes an 18-month delay before it comes into force? I would like a real answer.