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.

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

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.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be standing up today to speak to this, but I want to express that there is a little part of me that is also disappointed. I am always in favour of discussing the great work that happens at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, but it needs to be said that, today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-58, which I think is quite an important landmark piece of legislation. It is something that my party proudly supports. That bill is designed, of course, to make sure that collective bargaining is not going to be undermined by the use of scab or replacement labour. However, the Conservatives decided to move a concurrence debate on yet another committee report.

When we look at the Conservatives' history with labour relations, we can understand why they do not want to speak about Bill C-58. When they were in government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, they were not afraid to use back-to-work legislation. Indeed, when two Conservative members started speaking on Bill C-58 at second reading, they did not touch on the substance of the bill. I do not think they had anything to contribute. I do not even know if they actually support the bill. A party that is trying to rebrand itself as the party of workers now does not want to debate a bill that is protecting organized labour and the collective bargaining rights of workers. I will let Canadians make their own judgment on what that is all about.

Turning to the report that we are discussing today, the grocery affordability report from the agriculture committee, I am proud to say that this report issued from a motion that I brought at committee. I want to thank all members of that committee for granting a unanimous vote; I think they were feeling the political and public pressure of the moment from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, who had been feeling the pinch over the last two years on the spiralling, out-of-control grocery prices. We know these prices have been going up higher and faster than the general rate of inflation.

As a part of this, we have had the opportunity to question the grocery CEOs. We had them as a part of the original study, which we are doing now. The agriculture committee is now revisiting this issue, and we have had a chance to reinterview the CEOs. When we talked to the grocery executives, whether it was Michael Medline or Mr. Weston of Loblaws—

[Rachel Heft]

The ministerial order power for proposed section 107.1 only allows the minister to make an order to require a port authority or a person in charge of a port authority to take any measure. In situations where there's an ability to order workers back or to order some form of arbitration, it would apply to those individuals, or even potentially to any person, if it were that broad.

This particular formulation states that the minister can only, by order, require a port authority or a person in charge of a port facility to take any measure. It's really not targeted at workers at all. It doesn't allow the minister to order unions or workers back to the table or to binding arbitration. It wouldn't relate to strikes or lockouts in any way. From that perspective, it is distinct from labour legislation, including Bill C-58.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Does this duplicate or how does does this work in congruence with other pieces of federal legislation that already deal with strikes and lockouts, notwithstanding Bill C-58, which we still have to...?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

I would be very curious with regard to what the unions, such as the ILWU, would be saying about this. Has there been consultation with any of the unions with regard to this?

I do believe that it's going to kind of contradict Bill C-58 to some extent. However, I do realize that it's very important that we have backstops in place if we have another COVID-19 or if we have a natural disaster, to your point. We still have to make sure that we have commerce coming in and out of Canada. That's important.

Have there been any discussions at all with the unions and/or skilled trades workers as to how this implementation could affect them?

[Heather Moriarty]

I can't comment on Bill C-58. What I can share with you is that this applies only to Canada port authorities or those in charge of a port authority. It is very limited in terms of to whom it could apply. The scope of this is very narrow. I understand that Bill C-58 is on replacement workers in terms of legislation and those sorts of things. It's possibly quite different.

In terms of whether it would supersede or not, as I said, this is quite narrow. I don't believe there's anything in Bill C-58 for the Minister of Transport as it relates to protecting supply chains.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

I know that I am, somewhat, putting the cart before the horse, but I think it's important for this conversation. We know that we have Bill C-58 in front of us in the House as we speak, at least on the floor of the House. Again, just for clarification, would this supersede Bill C-58, if Bill C-58 did, indeed, get through the House without amendments?

I don't expect you to be looking at a crystal ball. However, would the minister's powers, so to speak, supersede what Mr. Bachrach is proposing here?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Partly to respond to Mr. Kurek's question, I think this addresses something that is somewhat different from Bill C-58, which deals with the use of replacement workers in the case of a strike or lockout. This has to do with the minister's use of discretionary powers provided for in this act. I take Ms. Moriarty's point that the intention of the government is not to use this section in those cases.

The reason we brought forward this amendment was to provide greater clarity. When union members and union leadership read the bill.... Labour actions are sometimes construed as risks to national economic security or competition, etc. It gets exaggerated in all sorts of different ways. The concern was that this may cast a wide net. It's worth articulating very clearly that it is not intended to be used in the case of a labour disruption.

I hope that answers the question around whether this is similar to Bill C-58. As was noted earlier, I think the risk is that it would be used to order people back to work, which is not something Bill C-58 deals with. Bill C-58 deals with the continuation of activities by using replacement workers. It is related, I guess, in terms of the fact that they both relate to labour, but with different aspects.

I hope that helps provide a bit of the thinking behind why we brought this forward.

[Rachel Heft]

We would have to examine that legislation to look for any correlation or impacts between this amendment and what's proposed in Bill C-58.

Having said that, I'm not aware of any conflict that would arise on account of amendment NDP-16 with respect to an order not being used for the purpose of terminating a strike or lockout.

I'll turn to my colleague for a policy perspective.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm just looking for the appropriate moment, but when it comes to NDP-16, I'm looking at the possible impacts this might have on the economy.

I wonder if Ms. Heft or Ms. Moriarty would be able to comment on some of the changes. I know there's a bill before the House right now, Bill C-58. I'm wondering if there's been any consideration about possible impacts between that legislation and what is being proposed here by Mr. Bachrach.