Bill C-525 (Historical)

Employees' Voting Rights Act

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent under these Acts must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority.

Natural Resources

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, today we are in the House fighting for workers and communities in Canada, so we can create sustainable jobs moving forward. We will grow the economy and we will fight climate change. Standing in the way of workers is the Conservative leader, a proud supporter of notorious anti-worker legislation, including Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. His plan for Canada is to cut investments, to let our economy fall behind and to let the planet burn.

Our plan will ensure we are building an economy in which Canadian workers and Canadian communities will win, and we will vote as many times as it takes to get it done.

[Caroline Senneville]

Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525 were both anti-union bills, in our view. They were aimed at making unionization more difficult and, once unions were formed, at reducing their scope of action. In our opinion, this violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, I repeat, guarantees the right of association.

As I said at the outset, Bill C‑58 will indeed transform the world of work and its vision in Canada. That is not insignificant.

In Quebec, the statistics are looked at every year. We saw that after the adoption of anti-scab legislation in 1977, the number of strikes didn't increase. What has decreased is violence and the number of ambulances on picket lines.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and good morning.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning.

I think if there's ever been an example of a party that doesn't want to talk about legislation, Canadians can see that today. The Conservative Party wants to talk about everything but this legislation. I am not going to talk about how a turkey cost $100 two years ago and I bought one for $35 two weeks ago. I am not going to talk about that.

Ms. Senneville, my question for you is this: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were two stunning pieces of legislation that the Conservative Party brought forth when it was in government that were absolutely detrimental and devastating to unions.

I would like you to talk to us, for the record, about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and tell us what they did to unions. I want you to also comment on Bill C-58 and how important it is. I want you to dispel the myth that unions want to strike.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to be splitting my time with Mr. Baker since we might only have one round.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for their excellent presentations.

I only have time to ask questions of maybe one, and they will be directed to you, Mr. Strickland.

In my riding of Davenport, I have a lot of members of unions, particularly construction unions. Ever since I was elected just over eight years ago, I've been very focused on them, very focused on their issues.

I will say to you that I'm very proud of our government. Over the last eight years, we've made huge improvements in worker rights and in more supports for unions. We very much started out with actually repealing two pieces of what I would consider very anti-union, anti-worker legislation when we first came in: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

I want to thank you for your leadership, Mr. Strickland. You have really pushed us to do quite a few things. I want to thank you also.... You were very laudatory today about the labour requirements around ITCs, as well as the funding that we have and the importance that we have in the fall economic statement around apprenticeships. Both are game-changers.

What I want to talk to you about is this: There are also measures in here around breaking down barriers to the internal labour mobility in our country and also around prioritizing construction workers for permanent residency. I would love it if you could comment on both of those. We have already introduced a new labour mobility tax deduction. Again, it's something that you very much championed, but now we're moving to the next phase to remove more barriers to internal labour mobility.

The second part is that we are actually, in our express entry immigration system, prioritizing construction workers. Can you talk about how important both of these elements are to our moving forward on the construction that we need, particularly in housing, across this country?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

Bill C-58 could be said to eclipse Bill C-377 and Bill C-525—pun intended. I really appreciate that.

Ryan, you mentioned the different transportation networks that you wanted to talk about. I'm also on the trade committee. At the trade committee, the longshore people mentioned that they kept using replacement workers and whatnot, and it was really hard to get the employer at the table. This was their testimony. Quite frankly, they felt it prolonged what happened out west, and it shouldn't have.

Would you not agree that the best deals are done at the table, and that we ought to get people at the table consistently? This longshoreman—it was “man” at the time—said they would have to present, and the union would present to the opposite, and they couldn't make decisions because they weren't the employer either. They were representatives. They'd have to go back. It was delaying things forever.

Do you have any comments about that?

[Bea Bruske]

When workers decide to go on strike, it's after a lot of frustration that comes to the fore. I will point out that in many situations where scabs are used, scabs are hired, and paid more than the very workers who are out on strike. That was certainly the case in my home province of Manitoba where there was a liquor control commission strike last year. The employees were making near minimum wage as new hires, whereas scabs were hired at $20 an hour. That is a further frustration that leads to a lot of anger on the picket line.

You mentioned two very egregious pieces of legislation, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Bill C-377 was really designed to ensure that unions were tied up in knots with all kinds of regulations, and reporting their union finances to outside agencies.

Union leaders are democratically elected. Union members have the right to see their financial statements at any given point in time. Union members are elected to boards as trustees. They have regular access to their union statements. They know how their union is spending their money and defending their interests. That was specific in tying unions up with a whole bunch of time, paperwork and energy surrounding the ability to not be able to perform, and not be able to represent their members as well as possible.

Bill C-525 was really designed to limit the amount of unionization within the federal public sector. We know that when you carry a union card in your back pocket, you have a greater chance to be part of Canada's middle class. We want all workers to have the ability to sit at a bargaining table, if they so choose, and be represented by a union to bargain a fair deal.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

That creates a challenge, then. You have replacement workers being brought in. You have workers trying to support their families and themselves while making significantly less, so you can see why some folks wouldn't support using replacement workers when it's challenging workers. I really appreciate you clarifying that for us.

I want to bring up one other thing. The previous government brought in two pieces of legislation which quite frankly the union movement of all stripes said were the most anti-union pieces of legislation that it had seen in forever. They were Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, I believe.

Could you please explain to the committee what they were, and why were they punitive?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Minister O'Regan, thank you for coming.

I have to say that I am virtual, but I am just amazed and dumbfounded when I listen to the Conservative MPs today with this new-found concern for Canadian unions and the working class. It's just amazing. It's a 180° turnaround. They brought forth Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were arguably two of the biggest union-busting bills that we've seen in our history, and we reversed them.

Minister, I want to congratulate you for Bill C-58. It's progressive. It's going to move our country forward. It's historic legislation that's going to help Canadian workers get powerful paycheques.

As we've seen in the House and here in this committee—again, disappointingly so—the Conservative MPs do not want to talk about Bill C-58.

We know what the Leader of the Opposition is about, and what he did was support anti-labour bills. We know that he also supports American-style right-to-work legislation.

Minister, I want you to share with me why you think the Conservative MPs today do not want to talk about Bill C-58.

Thank you.

Labour

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for his continued advocacy for Canadian workers. Indeed, the best deals are made at the bargaining table.

However, when Canadian workers see Conservative politicians like the members for Battlefords—Lloydminster, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Louis-Saint-Laurent parrot corporate talking points, they know that the Conservative Party of anti-union bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, is still alive and kicking.

Canadians will not be fooled by the Conservative leader caving to pressure after a steady 19-year political career opposing unions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Long.

I know Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 caused a lot of damage in the relationship between the federal government and working men and women across the country. They were undermining unions and making it difficult for them to form and forcing them to show their cards financially at a pivotal time at a negotiating table. Anyway, we ripped them up.

I look to Mr. Aitchison, because when we were working on 10 paid days of sick leave, we got unanimous consent. I think things have changed demonstrably in this country. I think we have a significant labour shortage and I think all parties recognize this, but we have gone the extra mile for workers because we sit down and we listen to them. We listen to what they have to say. We have a union-led advisory table, for instance, that is coming up consistently with good ideas, and they are the ones who know their membership.

A lot of the membership have significant concerns right now about artificial intelligence and about automation, but one thing they have asked for since before Canada even became a country was a ban on replacement workers, for anti-scab legislation, and we're going to deliver on that. I have sat down at very difficult negotiations with employers and with unions trying to sort out the best way to do it. We feel we've landed on it and we will be making the case to the House. I'm looking forward to support from all members, hopefully, as we had before.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you, Ministers, for coming.

My beautiful riding of Saint John—Rothesay is a strong union riding, very proud of its union heritage, whether they are Saint John firefighters local 771, the Saint John police force union, CUPE local 18 for outside workers or ILA longshoremen's union local 273. The list goes on and on.

One of the first things I heard in 2015, not really knowing that much, was about Bill C-377 and BillC-525. It was like, “If you guys get in, you have to repeal Bill 377 and Bill 525.” I did some research. It was the Conservatives. They were basically union-busting bills that made it very difficult for unions to certify, and every union that I came across was against them.

I know that the Conservatives at times like to paint themselves as friends of unions. I would say that it's the exact oppositive. Unions built the middle class, with five-day work weeks, eight-hour days and safe work environments.

We've done a lot of great things for unions. As you said, Minister, we've banned replacement workers.

I am going to put a motion on notice to study how unions deliver powerful paycheques, better benefits and safer workplaces for all Canadians. I'll be moving that motion very soon and I hope to have support from everybody around this table.

Minister, if you can, I'd like you to share your efforts with respect to being Minister of Labour in delivering for Canadian workers and for unions.

Thank you.

Canada Labour Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I understand why he is uncomfortable with my speech right now. I am talking about a history of the Conservative government intervening and forcing workers back to work when we are talking about a bill, Bill C-58, which is designed to protect those collective bargaining rights. That is the context of my speech. I understand if he is uncomfortable taking a little walk down memory lane as we talk about Bill C-58.

We can also talk about 2012, when again the Conservative government intervened in a railway strike, demonstrating again it has no problem using a legislative sledgehammer against unions and workers. I hope on Bill C-58 its members stand up one day to vote in favour of this bill.

It was not just the government, because in the previous Harper government we had two private members' bill, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377—

[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.

Labour

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey—Newton for his hard work.

Members of the Canadian Labour Congress were in Ottawa this week to express their frustration with the Conservative leader's silence on our government's replacement worker legislation. The last time that party stayed silent on a piece of legislation, it voted against Ukraine. For the 19 years the leader has been elected to the House, he has always voted against unions, including with Stephen Harper's Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, and it is increasingly obvious he will always stand against workers.

Canada Labour Code

[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.