Bill C-58 (Historical)

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.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I fear my friends across the aisle will not enjoy the rest of my speech.

When I left off, I was talking about the abject hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to working people, unions and the labour movement in this country. I am going to quote a few things here. The Conservative leader said union contracts that pay workers a decent wage result in a pointless, unnecessary inflation of costs, and that non-union firms with lower wages are good for competition. He also said he simply cannot comprehend that union firms can, in fact, be competitive with non-union ones.

That is the Leader of the Opposition prancing around talking about workers in the House. He is determined to deny them their historic, decades-long, hard-fought rights. The Government of Canada is committed to promoting safe, healthy, fair and inclusive working conditions. As of December 15, 2023, federally regulated employers are required to provide sanitary products to all female employees in the workplace.

For years, replacement workers have been a distraction to the collective bargaining process, and those days are coming to an end. That is because on June 20, Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, received royal assent. When it comes into force on June 20, 2025, it will ban replacement workers in federally regulated sectors.

Dealing with pregnancy loss can be very difficult. That is why the government instituted a new leave for pregnancy loss for employees in federally regulated private sectors. This leave will help support them during this difficult time. Adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy need time to welcome their children home. That is why we have also instituted a new 16-week leave to support adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy.

Technology is changing rapidly, and with it, so will the workforce. Increased availability of mobile technologies led to 20% of Canadians primarily working from home in 2023. In 2016, it was only 7%. However, remote workers are often required to be constantly available, which can lead to stress and burnout, ultimately impacting their mental health. We passed legislation to bring a right to disconnect into this new world of work. This measure will help restore the balance for nearly 500,000 federally regulated employees.

The Government of Canada is fully committed to pay equity as part of its overall goal of creating fair, safe and inclusive workplaces. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. When Canadians are able to count on equal pay for work of equal value, our economy benefits. That is the purpose of Canada's Pay Equity Act, which took effect in 2021. Since then, the government has been taking steps to ensure that everyone receives equal pay for work of equal value.

These are real accomplishments. Canadians watching this debate can see the cynical ploys of the Conservative Party of Canada. They must ask themselves, which one of these dozen or more tangible, real, legislative accomplishments for working Canadians would the Leader of the Opposition have brought in? The answer is none. The answer is the Conservative Party would not have initiated any pro-worker or progressive reforms to the Canada Labour Code that help Canadians in their jobs, in their lives and to achieve the kind of balance we all seek in these very complicated times. The answer is the Conservatives would have done none of that.

What we have is a Conservative leader and a Conservative Party trying to gaslight Canadians into thinking Conservatives are friends of workers. They are not, and the facts speak for themselves. In his own words, the leader of the Conservative Party has called into question the very basis and structure of labour unions, claiming union dues are forced on workers, and has called into question the role of workers in collective bargaining in Canada.

He complains, “The union has the power to shut down a workplace.... These legal powers give the union a state-enforced monopoly on labour”. Those were the words of the member for Carleton on May 29, 2012, in the House of Commons. The Conservative leader has attacked union jobs and union wages as “fattened union contracts”.

My colleagues and I are proud that we have turned back this movement and proud of the significant progress we have made over the years, and we are not going back. We will keep listening and working alongside unions, other parties in the House and progressive Canadians everywhere to make sure we continue to be there for working Canadians and continue to provide the things, the reforms and the guarantees that we know they are entitled to and that Conservatives, cynically, would take away.

This motion deserves to be defeated. It is a cynical ploy. The Conservative Party is not pro-worker. It is anti-worker.

I encourage every member of the House to vote against this motion.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this morning. This is the first time I am rising since Parliament resumed. I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleagues a good return. The session may be cut short. We shall see what the next few days and weeks bring. We are being kept in suspense. In any case, according to the media, the suspense is rather intense right now.

I truly hope, as my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said earlier, that we will be able to soften the tone a bit this fall and focus on working for the well-being of Quebeckers and Canadians. I hope we can do that. It is not easy, judging by the tone we heard all last week, but I truly hope that we can do it. I think it is possible. I think we have elevated the debate before, and I hope we can do so again.

Before I continue, I would also like to congratulate the candidates and winners of last week's two by-elections, in which I was an active participant. I commend all of the candidates. In this day and age, putting one's face on posters and wanting to work for the common good takes courage, no matter which party someone is seeking to represent. Not everyone here shares the same vision for the common good, but I think that most of us are trying to work toward that. Everyone who ran in the two by-elections did so with that goal in mind, and I commend them for that. I especially want to congratulate the two winners, the NDP candidate who won in Manitoba and, obviously, the Bloc Québécois candidate who won a great victory. We stayed up very late last Monday evening, until 2:30 in the morning, to find out the results, and the Bloc Québécois won. That is a great victory. I look forward to our new candidate's arrival in the House. He is a bright, intelligent young man who is full of ideas and who will rise in the House to strongly defend the interests and values of Quebeckers. I am sure that he will. We will see when he arrives.

I am delighted to speak to the bill tabled by my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I am fond of my colleague. I am not so fond of the Conservative Party's ideas in general, but I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I rise today in support of Bill C‑378, an important bill to protect the rights of federally regulated workers. It would extend from three months to two years the period during which a former employee may file a complaint for harassment or violence in the workplace.

As members know, the Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of workers' rights. Before the summer break, much was said about the anti-scab bill. The NDP had tabled the bill, and it was finally passed. Obviously, we supported it. In fact, over the past 30 years, the Bloc Québécois has introduced anti-scab bills 11 times. We settled this issue in Quebec 50 years ago. This happens all the time in the House. The House has debated countless bills on issues that Quebec has already dealt with. Take child care and pharmacare, for example. Quebec addressed both of those a long time ago. However, here they are still being debated. The Bloc Québécois members often feel as though we are working to help Canada catch up with Quebec. That is what we are doing most of the time.

Yes, we have always been staunch defenders of workers, and we firmly believe that this bill represents a major step forward in the fight against harassment and violence in the workplace. It is high time we recognized that victims of these kinds of incidents need more time to come forward, especially in cases where they are under tremendous psychological or physical stress.

Currently, federally regulated employees have only three months to file a complaint after leaving their job. This is simply too soon for many victims. The consequences of harassment and violence in the workplace do not disappear overnight. Too often, victims of workplace harassment or violence continue to suffer the after-effects long after they have left their job. They face emotional difficulties and mental health issues and, in many cases, are reluctant to speak out against their abusers for fear of reprisals or career stigma. This bill provides a concrete solution to that problem. Extending the time frame to two years gives victims time to heal, catch their breath and find the strength to file a complaint.

Two years is a reasonable amount of time for workers who have been unjustly treated to take the necessary steps to seek justice.

Workplace harassment and violence are not isolated problems. The Department of Employment and Social Development released a report entitled “2021 Annual Report – Taking Action Against Harassment and Violence in Work Places under Canadian Federal Jurisdiction” that revealed some alarming figures. In 2021, employees working in federally regulated industry sectors reported an absolutely staggering 4,950 occurrences of harassment and violence. The federal public service, banks and the transportation sector are among the main sectors where these incidents occur most often.

These figures unequivocally show that the fight against workplace harassment and violence is an ongoing process that is far from over. We need to strengthen protections for workers, and that includes allowing former employees to file complaints long after they leave the company.

It is also important to remember that these incidents often have serious repercussions, not only on the victims' professional lives, but also on their personal lives. The physical and psychological repercussions of workplace harassment and violence can persist long after the incident, which is why this bill is so important. It gives victims more time to come forward.

Passing this bill will send a clear message. Workers in federally regulated sectors deserve a safe and respectful work environment. The Bloc Québécois has always supported measures to protect workers and guarantee decent working conditions. We are pleased to see this bill move forward, just as we were pleased to see Bill C-58, which bans the use of scabs, pass recently. These are historic victories for workers' rights, and we must keep up the momentum.

I would also like to draw a parallel with the bill I introduced with my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, Rhéal Fortin. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑378, which was introduced by our Conservative colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank my staff, since this is the first time that I am rising since the House resumed. Like every other MP's staff, they help us improve our work, give better speeches and better carry out our duties, but most importantly, they help us to provide very important services to our constituents when we are away from our ridings. I am talking here about my political staffers, Daniel Lavallée and Sonia St-Amand, my communications manager, Corinne Guimont, my head of representational work, Michel Kieffer, and my photography and videography manager, Vincent Yergeau. This whole team is managed by an exceptional director, Arianne Collin-Gascon. I tip my hat to them and sincerely thank them for all the work they do behind the scenes to support me in my duties.

Back to Bill C‑378, which would amend the Canada Labour Code by extending the timeframe to file a complaint for harassment or violence in a federally regulated workplace from three months to two years, even after the individual ceases to be employed. The Bloc Québécois supports this initiative to better protect workers who have suffered abuse. Extending the deadline is a significant step forward for people who may not have the strength or support they need to act quickly in the wake of incidents involving harassment or violence.

The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of workers and always will be. We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois is delighted to see the Conservative Party suddenly taking an interest in workers. We hope that this is not just electioneering and that the Conservatives will continue to put workers first in the coming months. Let us hope that if they do come to power, they will be able to keep from targeting them in the cutbacks they plan to make.

In short, giving victims two years to report incidents of violence or harassment recognizes that victims of trauma may need more time before they are ready to file a complaint and take action. This is about respect for trauma victims. These people may, in some cases, need more time to finally be able to speak out. They often experience psychological and physical pain in the months following an incident of this kind, and they often do not have the strength to take action or defend themselves. Some may even need to seek medical attention, which obviously makes it even more difficult to file a complaint.

There have recently been some very positive developments for workers under federal jurisdiction, with the historic and unanimous vote in favour of Bill C‑58 prohibiting the use of scabs. By extending the statute of limitations, we are showing kindness and understanding towards those who have experienced these hardships. It shows concern for the victims, a sense of empathy that should always guide our decisions and legislation as legislators.

It is worth remembering that, in 2018, the government passed Bill C‑65, which strengthened the provisions on workplace harassment and violence. Updated definitions were added to control this kind of unacceptable behaviour more effectively. The definitions in question include any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that causes offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee. That encompasses all types of harassment and violence, even domestic violence.

I would now like to raise a matter of concern to me. Federal public services and Crown corporations are the sectors where incidents of harassment and violence occur the most often.

In 2023, the Department of Employment and Social Development tabled its annual report entitled “2021 Annual Report: Taking Action against Harassment and Violence in Work Places under Canadian Federal Jurisdiction”. I will talk about that later.

The Department of Employment and Social Development identified 4,950 reported incidents in 2021. The federal public sector and the banking sector alone account for nearly half of the reported cases, which is a very significant proportion. These numbers are troubling, if not alarming. That is why it is so critical that this limitation period be extended.

Before I conclude my speech, I would like to talk about an article I saw in this morning's newspaper. Maka Kotto, a former Parti Québécois minister, wrote this very moving article, which aptly summarizes what is happening in the House. He talked about the sometimes disgraceful comments and gestures that are made and the totally inappropriate attitude sometimes shown by members of the House, or certain members.

One point he made in the article was that bringing back dignified debates, where differences are expressed respectfully, is the only way to restore public confidence in our institutions. Everyone should read this article by Maka Kotto, a former Parti Québécois minister.

To wrap up, this bill is an important step toward greater justice for victims. It is time to recognize psychological wounds, which are not always obvious, and to take time to heal them. It is also time to recognize that federal workers deserve all the protection we can offer them with this legislative adjustment.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by my hon. colleague across the aisle, with whom I work regularly. With gas at about $1.50 a litre in Ontario, if I am not mistaken, it is a lot cheaper than it is in Alberta, where Premier Danielle Smith unilaterally hiked the cost of gasoline by 13¢. She did not provide, of course, the very substantial rebates on the price on pollution we have put on and that the Conservatives would take away.

Of course, that was not his question. Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-58, concerning replacement workers, at report stage and at third reading. On Monday, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑70 on countering foreign interference, which is already a strong response to the issues being investigated by the Hogue commission. We will hear from the Minister of Public Safety at second reading of Bill C‑70.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Finally, as is only proper, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) later today:

(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;

(b) members speaking during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and

(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to present.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25: Vote 1 under Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Votes 1 and 5 under Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization, Vote 1 under Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, and Votes 1 and 5 under Department of Employment and Social Development”.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Labour

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard loud and clear from unionized workers in my riding about how excited they are about the government's bill to ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. Yesterday marked another significant step in the right direction as Bill C-58 received unanimous support in the House. Workers know that our Liberal government stands with them, because the best deals and the most powerful paycheques are made at the bargaining table.

Will the Prime Minister update the House on progress on this historic legislation to ban replacement workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are banning replacement workers. We are banning replacement workers because we believe in collective bargaining. We are banning replacement workers because the best deals are made at the table, bigger paycheques are negotiated at the table, and better labour relations and long-term stability are created at the table. Let us keep that bargaining table free and fair with the full support of every MP in the House.

With unanimous consent, let us vote to move Bill C-58. Let us make some history. Let us ban replacement workers.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that nothing is scarier than driving down Conservative highways, whether it is in Kamouraska or Témiscouata. Conservatives vote against highway infrastructure and refuse to fund them.

Later today, we will be voting on third reading of Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, the early learning and child care legislation.

Next week is a constituency week during which the House is adjourned. We will, of course, be in our ridings to serve our constituents.

Upon our return, the agenda will include Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations, 2012, which deals with replacement workers. On Wednesday, we will continue debate on Bill C‑61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands. Finally, Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

I thank the members for their attention and wish them a good week in their ridings.

Labour

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the hon. parliamentary secretary is not on this file, I appreciate his words, saying that the government is grateful to these workers. However, the government has to show it, not just say it. Why will it not get back to the table? Why would the employer threaten to remove their trailer when they need it in these winter months? Why, during the strike, would a government that stated it was so proud to introduce Bill C-58, the ban on replacement workers, now use Canadian Armed Forces as scab labour to do the work of the people of the SNPFCF? Why is it using scab labour in this situation? What is the explanation for that?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. colleague wants to discuss Ukraine, because Conservatives have blocked and filibustered on several occasions when it comes to Bill C-57. They have moved concurrence motions several times.

I would also remind the member that I actually think it is really important that the Conservatives reflect over the holidays and perhaps consider changing their position, because it would be really nice to be able to show Ukraine that solidarity and unanimity that the House has always shown Ukraine. I am going to give them the time and space to reflect, to speak to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, to speak to Canadians of Ukrainian origin and to hear from them why this matters and why this is important, so that we can show the solidarity and unanimity that Canada has long been known for, which unfortunately the Conservatives, for reasons that I cannot understand but perhaps because of the right-wing American influence that we are seeing and the MAGA intentions of their leader, have decided not to support, based on falsehoods. Let us let them take the Christmas holidays to do that reflection.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers. Tomorrow, we will proceed with second reading debate of Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, again, another bill that we have not actually been able to debate because the Conservatives continue to move concurrence motions.

I want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes for the season to everybody who works here on Parliament Hill and to all of my colleagues. I want to express a special gratitude to the employees here in the House of Commons who have done an absolutely tremendous job, even when they were forced to stay here for 30 hours during a marathon vote, which was difficult not just for members of Parliament but particularly for the staff who were forced to work overtime and stay up all night.

With that, I wish everybody in this chamber, and indeed all Canadians, a very merry Christmas and a very happy holiday season.

Canada Labour Code

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.