Debates of Nov. 27th, 2023

Canada Labour Code

[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.