Bill C-58

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

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

[Lana Payne, National President, Unifor]

Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and my fellow panellists, one of whom I will disagree with vehemently on his statement on Bill C-58, but that's not why we're here today.

As you know, I'm Lana Payne, and I'm the national president of Unifor, Canada's largest union in the private sector, representing over 320,000 working people across this country. I'm joined by our director of research, Angelo DiCaro, who is also our in-house expert on trade.

I want to thank you for this invitation to participate on behalf of our members, many of whom—thousands and tens of thousands of them—work in industries affected and impacted by trade.

Let me start by saying that Canada's trade policy is a key aspect of our country's broader industrial strategy. Sadly, since the NAFTA, Canada has suffered from a lack of ambition regarding industrial development. This lack of vision has had governments sleepwalk into a series of unhelpful free trade arrangements and agreements with the voices and concerns of workers largely ignored and dismissed.

All of this changed when the NAFTA was renegotiated. The government deserves credit, not for salvaging a deal that caused immeasurable harm to workers but for presenting a bold, progressive economic vision for this country that underpinned its negotiating strategy with workers' voices at the forefront. This was a welcome break from the past.

The study you've undertaken ahead of the scheduled six-year review of the CUSMA is necessary and timely, and we thank you for it. U.S. officials aren't mincing words right now when they tell us not to get too comfortable ahead of these talks. Long-standing U.S. complaints, whether on Canada's supply-managed dairy or on digital trade, are on the radar. The USTR has already held consultations on the CUSMA auto trade. Canada cannot approach this review on its back foot.

We must remind Americans how interdependent our industrial economies have become, but we can't shy away from communicating our own concerns. There are obvious gaps in the CUSMA and our trinational trading relations that this review can and should address. I'll share some of the ones that are top of mind for Unifor.

With regard to forestry, the softwood lumber dispute has dragged on for eight years, impacting Canadian firms with unjustified tariffs. This sector is currently facing economic and serious headwinds, including mill closures and job losses, and these trade penalties are adding pressure to an already struggling industry. They must be removed.

With regard to aluminum, the monitoring of imports that circumvent and undermine the benefits of our decarbonization efforts must be strengthened. Aluminum is a strategic metal and should benefit from the same processing requirements that apply to steel under the auto rules of origin—you've just heard about those.

With regard to labour rights, much is being done to clean up Mexico's labour system. The CUSMA's rapid response mechanism is helping remediate and deter labour rights violations and also renew Mexico's democratic trade unions. This mechanism works, and it must be extended, including to workplaces in the U.S. and Canada, and I'll tell you why.

A recent union vote at a Mercedes plant in Alabama, in the United States, was strained by threats and intimidation towards workers, not unlike we've seen at Mexican car factories. Canada should demand a full investigation into this trade-distorting behaviour, especially since Canada has a deal to supply Mercedes with lithium, cobalt and other critical minerals. Canada should also clearly signal to the U.S. its intent to revisit a proposal to deem right-to-work laws a violation of the CUSMA labour chapter.

In the auto sector, there is an opportunity to link our trade and industrial strategies. Labour value content rules were set at $16 U.S. per hour in 2020, but they have not increased since. These labour rates must be updated along with the CUSMA's current list of core auto parts to reflect new EV technologies, like e-motors.

Canada must discuss with the U.S. the raising of its WTO tariff on light-duty vehicles, which currently sits at 2.5%, hardly enough to ensure compliance with the CUSMA's complex rules of origin. Canada must also take seriously the threat of Chinese EV imports, which are subsidized through forced labour, excessive subsidies, tech theft and other means. Canada must be vigilant in guarding against transshipments and prepare itself to take action in conjunction with the United States.

Unifor will obviously continue to monitor this review that you're conducting and will remain available for further discussions. We look forward to answering any questions you may have for us today.

Thanks very much.

[Ryan Greer, Vice President, Public Affairs and National Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, committee members, for having me here today on behalf of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

Since 1871, CME has been helping manufacturers grow and improve the well-being of their workers and the communities in which they operate. We are pleased to participate in your study on the 2026 review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

Unlike Canada's other trade relationships, which are primarily about competing for market share, our partnership with the U.S. and Mexico is about working together to compete with the rest of the world. We talk about Canada and U.S. trade, but that trade is really us making things together. Members of this committee will know better than most that the North American manufacturing bloc is world class in the quality and the cost of the things that it makes.

Building on NAFTA, CUSMA has succeeded in providing a solid foundation for North American trade by strengthening our regional economic ties while modernizing the provisions that govern them. While Canadian manufacturers consider CUSMA a success, Canada has not yet realized the full potential of the agreement in the first four years. There are under-utilized features, such as the competitiveness committee and the good regulatory practices committee, that have the potential to help propel Canadian and North American manufacturing even further forward.

For Canada's industrial economy, deeper North American economic integration is not only desirable but a necessity to compete at a time when the global economic and security environment is shifting beneath our feet. There are specific trade irritants, as there always have been and there always will be, that Canada must and should continue to try to address, both through the agreement itself and through sustained and serious bilateral and trilateral engagement with U.S. and Mexican decision-makers.

The ever-present buy American provisions that accompany U.S. federal investments stand out. Just earlier this week, I was speaking with a small manufacturer of large industrial mixing tanks. They do all of their manufacturing in Canada, with two-thirds of their sales into the U.S., which includes government procurement for municipal water treatment systems. They estimate that, because of the most recent “Build America, Buy America” provisions, they've lost approximately 300,000 to 400,000 dollars' worth of business, and they expect that trend to continue.

Unjustified tariffs on softwood lumber products, automobile rules of origin, Line 5 and Keystone pipeline issues, Mexican energy policies and even the ban on GMO corn have all come up and lingered since CUSMA came into force.

We also know that China's neo-mercantilist approach to international trade in the North American market will, as Catherine just alluded to, loom large in this review.

CME is supportive of efforts to improve Canada's trade remedy and import monitoring systems to defend from unfair practices, and we recognize that Canada is going to have to confront the rules-of-origin issues that have strong bipartisan support in Washington.

In addition to these, Canada has its own domestic issues that its CUSMA partners may describe as irritants, which we don't think can be avoided in the context of the upcoming review. One issue that we hear about most commonly from our CUSMA partners and manufacturers, specifically in the United States, is the increase in labour-related supply chain disruptions in our country. That includes, of course, last year's B.C. ports strike and the St. Lawrence Seaway strike, along with the threat this year of a stoppage at the port of Montreal, as well as a potential Canada-wide rail stoppage.

Transportation is the connective tissue that holds the North American trading relationship together. CME recommends that Canada do something to show it is serious about preventing these disruptions. In addition to the immediate direct harm that they impose on Canadian manufacturers, workers and their families, these disruptions undermine North American supply chains and the reputation of Canadian manufacturers with their cross-border partners and customers. CME was disappointed earlier this week that the House of Commons passed Bill C-58, which is legislation that will make this problem worse.

As we approach the 2026 review, Canada will also be faced with ongoing questions regarding its investments in national defence. As we saw from members of the U.S. Senate last week, we should not be surprised if decision-makers in the U.S. do not bifurcate their consideration of CUSMA and other major bilateral irritants, including Canada fulfilling its NATO commitments.

U.S. trade considerations are increasingly being driven by economic, national and supply chain security considerations and this trend will continue no matter who is in the White House. Notwithstanding these challenges, Canadian manufacturers are fortunate to be the participants in and beneficiaries of a regional economic relationship that is envied around the world.

As Canada navigates the next several months in the lead-up to the review, Canadian manufacturers will continue to work closely with governments, our colleagues at the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers and the Confederation of Industrial Chambers of Mexico to offer our support to preserve and promote a trade agreement that is, by and large, working well.

As part of those efforts, in November of this year, just a couple of weeks after the U.S. presidential election, CME will be hosting manufacturing leaders and senior decision-makers from across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, just a few blocks from here in Ottawa, at a North American manufacturing summit. This will provide an important inflection point for our sector to take stock of the agreement and the political forces influencing it, and to reaffirm our joint commitment to continue to build the manufacturing ties between our countries.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Canada Labour Code

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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-58.

The House resumed from May 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the third time and passed.

[Norma Kozhaya]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The pronunciation was very good.

Good morning, everyone.

The Quebec Employers' Council, the CPQ, would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment in the context of its study on federal regulatory modernization.

Reducing the regulatory and administrative burden is a major concern for Quebec employers. The CPQ believes that an overly rigid regulatory regime can interfere with businesses' ability to boost their performance and productivity and create wealth. It's clear that, in many cases, well-intentioned regulations can lead to unintended and undesirable consequences.

In addition, administrative tasks and paperwork consume a significant amount of managers' and business owners' time, and that directly impacts operations. Long wait times for project approvals, duplication and complex processes are all irritants and barriers to investment. Streamlined procedures and more efficient regulations would encourage investment and improve business productivity and competitiveness at no cost to the government. That's why the work you're doing here is so important.

If we look at any single bill or set of regulations, the procedures and their impact may seem reasonable. Taken together, however, they're a heavy burden for businesses. That's why a big-picture perspective is essential. It's important to consider the cumulative effects of the entire administrative burden on businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, or SMEs, and to do everything possible to lighten that burden. Regulatory regimes must prioritize efficiency, results and predictability. I have a few specific recommendations along those lines.

For starters, the government's approach to developing regulations must be improved by ensuring consultation periods and timelines that optimize stakeholder participation and involve independent experts.

Once new regulatory and administrative requirements and laws passed by the government are implemented, there must be thorough and continuous analysis of their actual impact on businesses and a mechanism to put forward suggestions for necessary reductions to the regulatory and administrative burden.

In addition, impact studies that accompany new legislative or regulatory provisions must be based on input from the sectors concerned and on-the-ground realities.

The government must also provide businesses with basic guidelines to facilitate compliance and consistency and ensure greater predictability.

Harmonization and avoiding duplication among departments and agencies and between multiple levels of government is essential. In budget 2023, the federal government said it was prepared to work with the provinces and territories to enhance federal-provincial co-operation to achieve the “one project, one assessment” objective, but that has not yet materialized.

The government should also eliminate the need to repeat certain applications and procedures for identical situations or when a company has demonstrated exemplary compliance in the past.

The federal government must also work with the provinces to remove more interprovincial trade barriers by facilitating mutual recognition of standards and regulatory harmonization. It should follow the example set by the Government of Quebec, which committed to introducing a specific bill every year in favour of regulatory and administrative relief and adopted an ambitious action plan to reduce this burden. The plan includes quantifiable red tape and cost control targets.

Equally important is following the one-for-one rule, which states that regulators must remove a regulation every time they introduce a new one. This rule covers regulation only, but laws, policies and guidelines are having an increasingly significant impact on both businesses and individuals.

Finally, we must avoid new counterproductive regulations that are not based on a proven need.

Consider Bill C‑58 on replacement workers. This may not be part of the committee's mandate, but we still wanted to bring it up.

My colleague and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. We may also have a few examples to share about temporary foreign workers or child labour in supply chains.

Thank you.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Conservatives are upset because I was going to reference the Winnipeg strike, actually, and there are pictures of the Winnipeg strike behind me, which actually capture the story even better than the words do. I want to talk about why the strike is so important. Maybe this is why the Conservatives are upset: They do not like it when the power of workers comes together to fight back and defend working people.

What happened in 1919, in the very same time in we find ourselves in right now, which is mid-May to late June, 30,000 workers, basically the entire workforce of Winnipeg, and in a lot of ways all of Manitoba at the time, came together and shut down the city and effectively shut down the province, fighting for fairness for workers. They were protesting the unfair work conditions, the poverty and specifically about issues like collective bargaining.

It is so poignant that I am here in Winnipeg at the Union Centre, having just spoken with representatives of the Manitoba Federation of Labour and its president, Kevin Rebeck, whom I want to thank for all of his hard work. I also want to thank the MFL for all of its hard work.

It is so poignant to be speaking to the bill today in this place, from this spot. I have to say what an honour it is that today our Bill C-58, which we fought for, would ban scabs once and for all at the federal level. It is a historic result of the hard work of New Democrats, and I have to say this would not have happened were it not for New Democrats' forcing the government to do it.

I also have to acknowledge that this would not have happened were it not for labour and for unions that have long led the charge for anti-scab legislation, and I want to thank them. I also have to acknowledge that it is an accomplishment we have achieved that we are debating this right now in the House and that the Manitoba NDP is also going to move forward with it. I want to salute and acknowledge that.

I have to say that it has been a long time coming. New Democrats have been fighting for decades for it to happen. In the past 15 years, New Democrats have tabled anti-scab legislation eight times. That is eight times that our unions, labour and New Democrats have fought for this. The last time it came up for a vote, in 2016, the Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to vote against it. The leader of the Conservatives voted against banning scabs eight times in the past, so it is clear whose side the Conservatives stand on. However, with the supporting guidance of our labour allies, union leaders and activists, we have finally secured this moment.

The legislation is about giving more power to workers. It is about giving power to workers so they can negotiate a fair deal and so we can ban scabs once and for all. Let us talk about what that means. Banning scabs is about giving more power to workers and less power to the big bosses and to CEOs. It is about ensuring that when a worker makes the difficult decision to go on strike, their job is not stolen by scabs. That is what this is about.

Banning scabs at the federal level is unprecedented. As with many things, Quebec was forward-thinking and already legislated this at the provincial level. This federal bill, which was negotiated by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is inspired by the Quebec legislation, but goes even further.

Many Quebeckers working in federally regulated businesses will now have more power thanks to the NDP. It is not thanks to the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives or the Liberals, but thanks to the NDP. If our party had been in power, the bill would have been even better, but we were forced to work with the Liberals. Throughout these negotiations, the Liberals sided with the big union bosses. We sided with labour and I am proud of the work of my team.

This is an historic moment. Banning replacement workers will give more power to workers and less power to the CEOs. Workers will have more power to negotiate better salaries. During this inflationary period, that is what workers need.

This bill, Bill C-58, is about making sure that workers get the respect they deserve, which is needed now more than ever because we know times are tough. We know that workers are getting gouged by corporate greed, corporate greed at the grocery stores, corporate greed when it comes to corporate landlords jacking up rents and corporate greed in telcos that charge Canadians some of the highest fees in the world for their cellphones and for Internet services.

Workers are fighting back. We are seeing workers organizing across this country. We are seeing it recently in Starbucks and in Amazon. We are seeing it in the public and in the private sectors. Unions are on the front line of fighting inflation because that is what unions do; they fight for working people, and New Democrats do as well. This anti-scab legislation is one additional tool to protect workers from getting ripped off and exploited by big bosses.

However, I want to acknowledge that this is not the only thing New Democrats have fought for, specifically for workers. We have forced the federal government to bring in two additional measures already. We have made it the law of the land in Canada that federally regulated workers will get 10 paid days of sick leave, which was never the law before, and we made that happen. We also forced the Liberal government to bring in a sustainable jobs act, which would ensure that workers have a seat at the table, by law, and that anytime we discuss the future of jobs in our country, we talk about training opportunities for workers that go through unions and that we create good union jobs with good wages as we look towards a net zero economy. That is what we established with the sustainable jobs act, which again, is something that Conservatives tried to fight against every step of the way.

Speaking of fighting every step of the way, I want to be very clear. When I say New Democrats made this happen, it is because we had to force the Liberals, we had to force the Prime Minister, to act. We know that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party voted against anti-scab legislation just a few years ago. Without unions and without the New Democrats, nothing happens; none of this happens. New Democrats had to force the Prime Minister to bring in this legislation after decades, and even after forcing the Liberals to bring it in, they missed the mark. We had to fight to strengthen the legislation for workers with amendments. Earlier this month, we amended the bill to speed up the implementation from 18 months to 12 months. Workers will be protected sooner because of that.

We also made sure that we closed loopholes to prevent any attempts of employers from skirting these laws. As well, we specifically made sure that workers will not be exploited by employers who try to use employees from another workplace, or use students or volunteers as scab workers. This is about ensuring that employees can strike for better wages without their bargaining rights being threatened. Big bosses will have to now show up in good faith to bargain at the bargaining table and to negotiate in a manner of good faith. However, imagine what we could have done if the out-of-touch Liberals were not in the way. Strong anti-scab legislation would already have been in place. Corporate greed and big bosses would be in check.

I also want to talk about the serious risk presented by the leader of the Conservatives. The leader of the Conservatives likes to cosplay that he is there for working people, but we all know that the leader of the Conservatives and the Conservative Party want to wage a war against unions, a war against workers, in direct contrast to what this bill, Bill C-58, is all about. The leader of the Conservative Party would bring back anti-union legislation, as he did when he was in cabinet with the Harper government. He would bring in laws to make it harder for workers to fight for better deals. In 2013, the leader of the Conservative party said, very boldly, “I am the first federal politician to make a dedicated push toward this goal”—

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1977, under René Lévesque's Parti Québécois government, the Quebec Labour Code banned the use of replacement workers.

The Quebec labour minister at the time, Pierre Marc Johnson, said the following when the legislation was introduced, and I quote: “The purpose of this measure is not to automatically close factories during a lockout or legal strike, but rather to restore a healthy balance between the parties and eliminate practices that cause tension and violence during labour disputes.... Workers, not companies, are the first to suffer as a result of a work stoppage, and letting the employer carry on as though nothing is wrong during a lockout or legal strike creates a fundamental imbalance between the parties.”

This was a major step forward for workers' rights in Quebec and a defining moment in the history of the labour movement and its struggle.

Today, 46 years later, Bill C-58 seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to ban replacement workers. Bravo, or should I say, “it is about time”?

It is certainly a step forward for the rights of federally regulated workers, but above all, it is making up for lost time. The fate of thousands of workers and their right to bargain and to strike has been, continues to be and will continue to be undermined by this inexcusable delay, at least until the bill comes into force 12 months after receiving royal assent.

The effects of this injustice are still being felt. Quebec workers live under two systems. Federally regulated workers in Quebec who are currently in a dispute are paying the price for this injustice. Think of the port of Quebec workers who have been locked out for nearly two years. The employer is using replacement workers. No one is talking about it. No one is working on fixing this because it is business as usual. This is unacceptable.

Think of the Vidéotron employees in Gatineau, who are also locked out. In that telecommunications sector, thousands of jobs are being outsourced to call centres overseas. They too have been locked out for several months, and replacement workers are being used.

At the port of Sorel‑Tracy, the United Steelworkers went on strike for 12 months, and scabs were brought in.

I could continue to list all of the injustices and shameful practices that employers have engaged in with impunity because, to date, the Canada Labour Code has not been changed to remedy this injustice.

Unions have been calling for anti-scab legislation as part of the Canada Labour Code for a long time, and so has the Bloc Québécois. Over the past 33 years, there have been 11 bills, the very first of which was tabled in 1990 by the dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Time after time, the Liberals and the Conservatives have blocked the Bloc Québécois's bills. I myself introduced Bill C-276 in this Parliament in May 2022.

The fight was waged by unions and the Bloc Québécois, with constant prodding and the strength of our convictions. The NDP will take credit for that. It was certainly part of that struggle too and, indeed, we commend its work, just as we commend that of the Department of Labour and the leadership the minister has shown.

However, there is a “but”, and it is a big “but”. Unfortunately, we have to wonder, given the way the bill has been crafted, with the proposed implementation deadline, for one, whether there is any real intention for this bill to actually see the light of day or whether it is just window dressing, meant to look good.

Everyone knows as well as I do that there is a clear difference between fact and appearance, just as there is a difference between declared values and practised values.

From the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has condemned the fact that the initial bill provided for an 18-month coming-into-force period following royal assent. Given this time frame and the fact that we have a minority government, it is no wonder that we are questioning the intent. We proposed an amendment in committee to repeal this delay, proposing that the bill come into force as soon as it receives royal assent. This amendment was rejected by all parties, because the NDP and the Liberals had agreed in advance to propose a 12-month delay. However, the vast majority of the unions we heard from said that there was no explanation for the delay and they too wanted the bill to take effect right after royal assent. That is what it means to protect workers, and the Bloc Québécois stepped up.

When we began studying the bill, we announced that we also wanted to improve it in committee and move fast to close the loophole to ensure that the nonsense of using scabs is banned for good. We proposed carefully chosen amendments put forward by the unions. Among other things, these amendments aimed to include federal public service employees and thus correct a major omission. The government, as an employer, has excluded its own employees from the scope of the bill. We proposed a relevant amendment, but it was ruled out of order because it would amend another act. In principle, however, it is very unfortunate that the bill does not apply to federal government employees. This error needs to be corrected and I hope it will be corrected.

We also made amendments to amend or repeal sections that allow exceptions to the prohibition rule. It may seem complicated. Strikebreakers are prohibited, but there are exceptions. Among the exceptions, I would particularly mention employees covered prior to the bargaining notice. The employer is permitted to use these employees as replacements for striking employees in the event of a dispute, lockout or strike.

It would even be possible for an employee in a bargaining unit of the same employer—but in a different local—to be called upon to replace workers or colleagues during a strike or lockout. This makes no sense whatsoever. The unions have rightly denounced this. If the law is supposed to be consistent, how can certain categories of workers, such as subcontractors and independent contractors, be excluded from this restriction? That sort of thing is prohibited under Quebec's law.

We also proposed an amendment to provide for an investigation mechanism that exists under the Quebec code. If the government wants to impose sanctions, if it wants to be tougher, it has to give the Canada Industrial Relations Board the means to do its job and investigate if the employer breaks the law. Employees cannot do that. Employees who are on strike or locked out cannot enter the factory or their employer's premises. An investigator would have to be called in. This amendment was also rejected.

We had also proposed an amendment to reduce the time limits for the Canada Industrial Relations Board orders so as not to unduly interfere with the strike. All these amendments were rejected.

We are disappointed that these proposed improvements were rejected. They are essential for ensuring the consistency of the bill's objective of fully recognizing the fundamental right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike. However, we can be proud that we put them forward, stood by our convictions, and listened to and supported union demands in the fight for workers' rights.

If the past is any indication, an opportunity to reform the legislation is unlikely to come around again any time soon. This supposedly historic bill deserved more care and attention to achieve its objectives. I hope that history will vindicate the struggle of workers and finally rectify the injustice they have laboured under for so many years.

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

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he is tripping me up right now. He will not even allow me to actually answer the question.

This is the trend from this particular member. It is unbelievable that the member is in a coalition yet is actually asking that type of question.

As I referenced, we have Bill C-58 in front of us. That is what we are debating here today and what we will be voting on soon. That is what is before us.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can speak to the legislation that is before us today, Bill C-58. We have had healthy debate in the House of Commons over the legislation. We had a lot of testimony at committee, and it went through all the processes there. We had some amendments that made the legislation even better than it was before. I outlined a couple of them in my intervention.

Here we are today with the proposed legislation, which affects federally regulated industries. As I mentioned, we have supported the legislation and have worked toward making it better, in particular with the labour board. As I mentioned in my intervention, it was good to hear from the board and get a lot of our questions answered as to their internal operations. In that way, we could better understand how they deal with the different applications that come forth and what they are going to do moving forward in order to improve their processing times.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that was a statement, as opposed to a question.

All I will say is that we have Bill C-58 before us here today. As I mentioned, we have been working the proposed legislation through the parliamentary processes. We had very good testimony at committee. We had some recommendations that were approved of through amendments, and here we are today at this stage. That is what we are debating.

As I mentioned, Conservatives support the amended legislation before us.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating Bill C-58, which is in the final stages in the House. What I can say in reference to the specific bill, which is for federally regulated workers, is that it has gone through all the processes. I did not speak to all the amendments here today, just due to time, but we did have a number of amendments that came through at committee, that were approved and that are now in the legislation. Therefore, we look forward to moving forward with the legislation so that it can move to the next stages in the parliamentary process.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. I rise today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. This legislation passed at second reading with support of the Conservatives and was recently scrutinized at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, termed the human resources committee, where I am proud to serve as vice-chair on behalf of the Conservative caucus.

I would like to thank all Conservative members, but in particular I would like to thank the Conservative member for Dufferin—Caledon for his work on this legislation and for attending our committee meetings on this. The human resources committee heard from a wide variety of relevant witnesses to this legislation and to the issue of replacement workers at large. The committee heard from many labour representatives and business industry stakeholders.

We heard testimony from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, whose work will be affected by this legislation. From my observations, there seemed to be a lot of interest from all parties to ask questions and to delve into the work it does and how this legislation could potentially affect its workload and operations. I had a much better understanding of its internal processes once its representative had answered all of our questions.

Many witnesses at committee spoke of the importance of the board. The federal government is responsible for the national Canada Industrial Relations Board. While the legislation before us intends to encourage faster decision-making at the board, ultimately it is on the Liberal government to ensure it is properly operating to resolve labour conflicts that come before it and to meet the needs of those involved. Representatives of both employers and labour said that the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs to be operating faster now and moving forward. In fact, an amendment at committee, which is now in the legislation, would reduce the number of days required for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to render decisions.

One other point I will note in this legislation is that there was an amendment at committee, supported by all members, to move up the coming into force date for this legislation. I would like to bring to the House some of the important feedback we heard from various stakeholder witnesses on Bill C-58. Several points were raised during the committee's study of this legislation. While the Liberals may trumpet this legislation as focusing on replacement workers, they themselves have been replacing workers in government workplaces with Liberal-friendly external contractors.

It is a fact that the government has spent more on expensive external outsourced contractors than ever before. We know this affects workers in many ways. For example, the president of the Customs and Immigration Union appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. He said, when it came to the role of the disastrous $60-million ArriveCAN app, “we believe the goal of the app is to replace officers”.

He spoke to how he believes that, had his workers been listened to during the ArriveCAN process, instead of being replaced by a two-person IT firm at the cost of $60 million to taxpayers, then, “a great deal of what happened would not have happened.”

At the human resources committee's study of Bill C-58, we heard from labour representatives how outsourced contractors and consultants were a concern for their workers. The Liberal government says it stands on the side of labour, yet it actively sidelines its hard-working public service workers and, worse yet, replaces their work with expensive, outside, outsourced consultants and contractors at the cost of billions to taxpayers. We also heard from labour representatives that outside consultants and contractors can be demoralizing for their workers when someone has been hired from outside as an external contractor to oversee these duties or do the same duties.

The Liberals have hired a lot of public sector workers during their time in government. These workers surely have the needed experience and expertise, but then, behind closed doors, the Liberals choose to not trust them with major government initiatives. Instead, they replace their work with that of high-priced, Liberal-friendly contractors and consultants, at the cost of billions of dollars to Canadian taxpayers.

One of the things Bill C-58 would do would be to amend the maintenance of activities process to “encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout”.

Our committee heard from many stakeholders on the types of implementations that typically arise when identifying these essential activities. One of the challenges identified was what qualifies as work that is in the national interest, public safety or critical infrastructure. While these may be easy to identify as essential activities in some workplaces, we heard of some challenges of identifying essential activities in often limited windows of time.

Lastly, while I spoke earlier about the concerning trend of the Liberal government endorsing replacement work through outside contractors and consultants inside the government, I would also like to speak to the government's record of replacing Canadian workers with international workers as part of multi-billion dollar agreements with major corporations.

When the Liberals signed agreements that provided $44 billion in taxpayer money to massively profitable corporations in exchange for building electric battery plants in Ontario, they promised that that would create Canadian jobs. When Conservatives pointed out that these plants would be built with international labour instead of Canadian labour, both the Liberal employment minister and Liberal industry minister tried to downplay the number, saying it would only be a small handful.

Conservatives did not believe the Liberals, and neither did Canada's building trades unions. Union members wrote a letter to the Prime Minister outlining how foreign workers are displacing Canadian labourers at the NextStar construction site, all while 180 local millwrights and ironworkers were unemployed and available to perform the necessary work.

The Canada's Building Trades Union president wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. He said, “Canadian workers are now being replaced by international workers at an increasing pace, on work that was previously assigned to Canadian workers”. He used the word “replaced”.

The Liberal ministers were also not truthful when they said this was only a short-term issue that required foreign replacement workers who had “specialized knowledge”.

As the letter from Canada's Building Trades Union points out, “This is the brazen displacement of Canadian workers in favour of international workers, by major international corporations thumbing their noses at both the Government of Canada, taxpayers, and our skilled trades workers.” The Liberals say that they want to ban replacement workers, yet they have allowed Canadian workers to be replaced in favour of the demands of internationally profitable organizations.

During the labour minister's appearance at committee on Bill C-58, we asked him why he had not demanded a memorandum as part of the deal to guarantee hiring Canadian contractors for the Stellantis plant. The minister said he did not view this as his role, and that it was a matter of provincial jurisdiction, even though potential foreign workers coming to Canada is a federal responsibility.

Workers cannot trust these words or the promises of more jobs supposedly outlined in these agreements with Stellantis or other deals. If the Liberals wanted to regain workers' trust, they should simply make the commitment for Canadian jobs outlined in these agreements public, but they refuse to do so.

At other committees, Conservative members tried to get access to the contracts. However, Liberal and NDP members filibustered to protect the government and prevent workers from hearing the truth.

In addition, Conservatives were pushing the Liberal government to release details of its agreement with Honda Canada on building its electric vehicle operations in Ontario. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure Canadians get all the jobs in this multi-billion dollar project. Yes, the NDP, the party that calls itself a friend of workers, is joining with the Liberals in hiding contracts from Canadian workers and the Canadian public.

Another thing I will bring up with respect to workers is the just transition legislation, which has been renamed. An internal government document disclosed that 2.7 million workers would be affected by the legislation. There is a lot of uncertainty with this. There is concern as to what this means, and it is creating stress for workers in the country, particularly those in the energy sector. This lengthy government document outlines some other potential jobs. However, they are nowhere near the same level for pay and benefits. There is concern among workers in this country, and legislation such as this certainly does not put people's minds at ease.

It is one of the great privileges of my role as the shadow minister for employment, future workforce development and disability inclusion to travel this country and speak to many workers. The input I have received from them has really been very meaningful. I appreciate those conversations and hearing what a lot of their issues and suggestions are.

Conservatives have been supporting the proposed legislation along the way and continue to do so. However, it is clear the legislation before us today alone will not resolve all the issues with respect to workers being replaced in many different ways.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague opposite sees the glass as half full. If I were on the same side of the House as he is, I would likely try to do the same thing.

He also mentioned that the government acted very quickly on Bill C-58. I would like to remind him that the first bill was introduced by my colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel in 1990 and that 30 bills have been introduced since then, including my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville's Bill C-276.

Since we are talking about timelines, the Bloc Québécois wants this bill to come into force as soon as it receives royal assent, but we could not come to an agreement in committee with the other parties, which want an 18-month delay between royal assent and the coming into force of the bill. We did, however, manage to agree on a 12-month delay. We are still concerned, because the bill could be at risk if an election is called before it comes into force.

Since the government wants to move so quickly and since everyone agrees with that, as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government who sees the glass as half full, why can Bill C-58 not come into force as soon as it receives royal assent?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear the member for Winnipeg North speak in the House, as opposed to one of the many other Liberals who always speak instead.

I have a couple of comments. First of all, the member said himself that this is such an important issue, that he has talked about it for so many years and that the Minister of Labour has talked about it for so many years. It is funny how it is so important that it has taken them nine years. I think there is a bit of political opportunism there.

The member talked a lot, as he did previously on Bill C-58, about the great strike in 1919. The Canadian Encyclopedia says the cause of the strike was inflation costs, due to which housing and food were too much to afford. How does the member feel about creating the identical situations in Canada, under his government, that caused the great strike in 1919?