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

Sponsor

Seamus O'Regan  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

May 27, 2024 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012
Feb. 27, 2024 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

December 13th, 2023 / 4:30 p.m.


See context

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the chance to speak about agriculture in the House. I am a bit disappointed because I was hoping to speak to Bill C-58 today.

My hon. colleague will know, given that he serves on the committee with me, that we are revisiting this issue. We recently had four of the five grocery CEOs appear before our committee. Of course, in particular, Mr. Galen Weston tends to stand out. He is the one the media seems to be interested in.

What I found interesting when Mr. Weston appeared before our committee is that he did not seem to be aware of how many of his employees are accessing a food bank in order to get by. This is a man who commands a benefits package worth about 431 times that of his average employee.

The point I really want to get to is that Mr. Weston's company, Loblaws, is one of the two holdouts on joining a grocery code of conduct. I want my hon. colleague to explain this to members of the House. If we have Walmart and Loblaws step out of the grocery code of conduct, what is that going to do for the remaining players? What does he think the federal government, in partnership with the provinces, should do as a next step? Does he believe that it is time to start enforcing a mandatory code as a result?

Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry, my voice is weak, but I hope you'll hear me.

What interests me at the moment is once again the whole issue of workers and collective bargaining. The witnesses today all seem to agree that the best negotiations are done at the bargaining table. However, I'm also hearing that the government needs tools, particularly to ensure that this kind of situation does not happen again. So I heard you talk about what we should not do, but not what we should do.

Mr. Guy, you do not agree with the approach we are proposing in Bill C‑58. Are there any solutions or tools that you think we should be using? I still think this bill is a very important measure to implement, but you may have other ideas.

Then I will turn to Mr. Eidlin to see if he can also suggest tools that could be used in situations like this.

Go ahead, Mr. Guy.

December 12th, 2023 / 11:55 a.m.


See context

Vice-President and Deputy Leader, Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Robin Guy

We've responded to the government's open consultation on section 106. I'll say we've welcomed the review. We've made some suggestions. We've suggested some questions for the two co-chairs doing the review to look at.

My concern is a little bit with the size and scope of what they're looking at. I'll also say it was a little bit confusing that the government tabled the Bill C-58, which is anti-replacement worker legislation, before the results of the review. That's a bit of a concern on our side.

Yes, we've raised it through the formal consultation mechanism.

Robin Guy Vice-President and Deputy Leader, Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable members. Thanks for having me back again today.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is the country's largest business association, with an active network of over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade representing nearly 200,000 businesses of all sizes in all sectors and regions of our country.

As a trading nation, our infrastructure matters more to Canada than to many other countries around the world. In fact, $2 of every $3 that Canada makes relies on moving goods. This is significantly higher than the OECD average of just over 50%. When Canadian businesses can't import or export goods reliably, we undermine our ability to grow our economy.

Our west coast is Canada's largest gateway to the world, handling over $800 million worth of cargo, from agri-food and potash to critical minerals and household necessities every single day. That accounts for a quarter of Canada's total trade.

This summer, we saw over 35 days of uncertainty and disruption to our west coast gateways, including Vancouver and Prince Rupert, that caused major delays for Canadian businesses in virtually every sector across the country. Twenty-five per cent of our total trade stopped.

This meant that Canadian potash had to cut production and sales during the strike, causing those who rely on Canada for fertilizer to look elsewhere to ensure that they could continue to grow crops. This meant that businesses looking for replacement parts to fix machinery were delayed, causing production to slow or stop. It meant that fruits and vegetables that we bring to Canada were left to rot in containers as opposed to being on shelves for consumers to enjoy. Plain and simple, it meant that goods were going to become more expensive for Canadians and fuel inflation.

I will stress to the committee that the damage from a strike does not take place during the days when workers are picketing. Businesses need certainty. They need to know that, if they're importing or exporting goods, they will get where they need to go when they need to be there. If not, suppliers will go elsewhere, and it is not guaranteed that they will return.

When looking at Canada's record, many of our trading partners are beginning to question if Canada can reliably get goods to market. We saw this shortly after the west coast port strikes with the St. Lawrence Seaway, and we see this with the uncertainty that is looming at the Port of Montreal.

I must state that the Canadian Chamber respects the right to collective bargaining. We believe sincerely that the best deals are reached at the table, but when negotiations break down and meaningful bargaining is no longer possible, the Canadian business community expects the government to show leadership and act in the best interest of the country.

The Canadian Chamber called on the government to use all of the tools it had in its tool box to prevent a strike and then to solve it. We applauded the Minister of Labour for directing the senior mediator to recommend terms of a settlement to reach a fair deal. Unfortunately, we did not see that action until nearly two weeks into the port strike, when significant damage to the Canadian economy and Canada's reputation had already taken place. That dragged on for further weeks while the union failed to ratify the agreement.

The review initiated by the Minister of Labour under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code is a key opportunity to do this to equip the government with more tools to be able to avoid labour disruptions while protecting the public interest. We need to make sure that the government has the ability to force the two sides together and form a binding resolution. We can't have the government waiting on the sidelines for two weeks before action is taken.

Canada's supply chains are only as strong as the weakest link. Government can't solve all of our supply chain issues, but it must look to enable policies that will enable trade and strengthen our supply chains. Less than a month ago, the Minister of Labour told Canadians that our credibility as a trading nation depends on the stable operation of our supply chains and that we must do everything we can to preserve that stability. We couldn't agree more.

However, the introduction of Bill C-58, which aims to prohibit the use of replacement workers during strikes, suggests that the government wants to move away from preserving stability. It is, in fact, doubling down on Canada's being seen as an unreliable and unstable trading partner.

We need our leaders to engage in an honest dialogue that will provide our government with a tool to address our labour challenges while allowing employers and employees to bargain the way they should. For the sake of the economy, I would urge all parties to vote against this legislation.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

December 7th, 2023 / 3:20 p.m.


See context

Burlington Ontario

Liberal

Karina Gould LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadian workers built this country and it is Canadian workers who will meet the challenges of our time. We believe that workers do not just need a seat at the table where decisions are made; they should lead it.

This is the idea behind the sustainable jobs act. It is why we tabled Bill C-58 to ban replacement workers and why we launched the union-led advisory table this week. Of course, the Conservatives continue to oppose every effort to bring workers to the table, because they are scared of workers.

Can the Minister of Labour share how our government continues to bring workers to the table to find solutions to the challenges of our time despite Conservative obstruction?

Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON

Thank you.

We see the legislation in Bill C-58 that has been brought to the House. I'll be honest with you. If I were the minister of labour for the Liberal Party of Canada right now, I'd be some ticked off that we're even talking about this at transport committee. How do you on one side throw a bone to labour and say that you're labour-friendly, and then on the other turn around and not do the due diligence, the justice and the really hard work of asking the really hard questions about who's going to be affected by this.

These are potentially 350 families sitting around a kitchen table with no food on their table, no pablum for their children's bottles, no diapers on their babies' bums, all because we need to accelerate a plan.

The Bloc Québécois member is now laughing at me. This is very serious stuff, sir. These are people's lives we're talking about. To accelerate a plan and not have a plan to go forward is quite frankly wrong and disgusting, and to smile and laugh about something like that is quite frankly wrong. I take major offence to that.

Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Oh, so you're all part of that grand total.

Could I just ask, what would your opinions be as regards to Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation that's being proposed?

December 5th, 2023 / 12:15 p.m.


See context

President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada

Robert Ashton

For the longshore sector, the last time that I know of when scabs were used—and from 1935 to 1976 I wasn't alive, so bear with me here—was at what we call the Battle of Ballantyne, where the government and the police force used tear gas on the public for the first time ever, and they beat my people and murdered my people.

Just as one more thing on strikes and the anti-scab legislation, and I'll be quick, the reason there are so many strikes and lockouts happening right now in Canada is that workers are pissed. Workers are pissed off that the employing class will not share the profits that it's making and will not give the working class the due that they deserve for making those profits for their employers. If Bill C-58 had actually been in use for the last couple of years, all these lockouts and these strikes, where the employers have been using scabs and have drawn it out, would have been a lot shorter.

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Thank you.

I will continue with you, Mr. Ashton, because Mr. Trudel brought up Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation that the NDP has put forward. I'm just wondering if you could comment on the effect that having anti-scab legislation would have in a situation like yours in the port of Vancouver. Would it lengthen disruptions? Would it shorten disruptions? I can understand perfectly well how it would benefit workers, but can you maybe expand on how it would benefit the worker/employer ecosystem as a whole?

Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I don't know if you'll be able to answer me or comment on the following question, but I'll ask it anyway.

What is your opinion on Bill C‑58, which would prohibit the use of replacement workers?

Could that help in terms of negotiations and speed things up?

December 5th, 2023 / 11:50 a.m.


See context

President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada

Robert Ashton

It's Bill C-58. Yes, definitely. The 18-month delay after it receives royal assent shouldn't be there. It should be enacted immediately, to protect workers' rights. The other part of it is an absolute ban on scabs in the workplace. When an employer uses a scab, it tilts the scales. It creates animosity in the workplace that really can never be repaired. If there's a strike or a lockout, we don't go to work. That workplace should be shut down completely, because that truly does force the two parties to sit down and act like adults and get a deal done for the betterment of the workplace and the workers.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50Government Orders

December 4th, 2023 / 7:10 p.m.


See context

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement, to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

I say the word “unfortunate” because, if it were not for the Conservative procedural games at the natural resources committee, there would be no need to disrupt the business of the House today. We are starting our third month of having to endure Conservative filibuster tactics, including a discussion on, seriously, how many haircuts I have had since we first tried to start studying Bill C-50. The answer is that it is coming up on three.

Constant interruptions and a refusal to adhere to the chair's rulings from Conservative MPs in the committee have been well documented for weeks. On November 1, after filibustering the natural resources committee for several hours on motions, amendments, points of order and questions of privilege, the Conservatives decided to challenge the chair, forcing an undebatable vote to occur. The committee then ruled on the speaking order and agreed that the MP for Timmins—James Bay had the floor to speak. It is simple.

The Conservatives then continued to showcase disrespectful behaviour and continued to insult the chair, making a mockery of the committee process. We have seen that mockery carry over to this chamber today with the Conservatives' trying to rehash issues that were settled by committee members following due process. We again saw it this evening when the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to make his intervention. It was a very unfortunate situation in this chamber.

Not only was this behaviour in committee disrespectful toward my colleague as chair, but it was also disrespectful toward the non-partisan staff trying to provide interpretation services, technical support and procedural advice for the committee. It is difficult for the non-partisan interpreters, when they are trying to ensure all Canadians can listen to the meeting in the official language of their choice, and all they hear is Conservative members talking over other committee members. It is genuinely a discouraging sight to see, and I expect better from my colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives also refused to let the member for Timmins—James Bay speak in favour of the sustainable jobs legislation for several weeks and, as I mentioned, we have already experienced that this evening. That has continued in this chamber, which is very regrettable. The message was clear: If one was not a Conservative member of Parliament on the natural resources committee, one would not get the floor to speak, regardless of what the committee had agreed to.

The official opposition is supposed to show Canadians why they should be the government in waiting. The actions of the committee members and the childish games have clearly proven otherwise. If the Conservatives were serious about doing the job and critiquing government legislation as the official opposition, we could have had the minister come to the committee to speak to Bill C-50, as well as to Bill C-49, according to the motion that had been put forward.

Bill C-49 is a very important piece of legislation for our eastern colleagues, relating to offshore wind in Atlantic Canada. We could have heard witnesses from each party, assuming the Conservatives would not have filibustered that as well, which they have done in the past when labour, indigenous and environmental groups came to testify on other studies, including our sustainable jobs study.

I have received over 5,000 letters in my constituency office from Canadians in all provinces and territories who want to see the sustainable jobs legislation move forward. This legislation would give workers a seat at the table with respect to their economic future, through a committee. That is all.

The Conservatives are not interested in doing their jobs as committee members, either because they disagree with sustainable jobs or they want to cause chaos to make their leader happy. It could be both. How does this help workers, though? How does this help Canada move toward a sustainable economy? The answer is simple. It does not, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way.

When the Leader of the Opposition claims that he is on the side of workers, let us remember what is happening right now in the House. We are currently moving a motion to break this filibuster and move forward with the sustainable jobs legislation, not to mention other disruptions of Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation, but that is an intervention for another day.

It is laughable that the Conservatives pretend to care about studying Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Rather than deal with any legislation that would help workers get ahead with an energy transition that is already happening, the Conservative MP for Provencher would rather talk about how great plastic straws are for McDonald's milkshakes and how much gas he used driving muscle cars in the 1970s. I am not joking. Members can check out the blues for the natural resources meeting on November 27. I find it convenient that, in his rant about plastic straws, he ignored the negative consequences single-use plastics have on our environment. He ignored how they kill wildlife, both on land and in oceans, as well as their impacts on human health.

The Conservative member then went on to talk about carbon not being that impactful, because “someone” pointed it out to him. Maybe he should listen to climate scientists when they say carbon is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. The world is now warming faster than it has at any point in recorded history. This leads to global warming and climate change. This is easily accessible information, but I guess Conservatives refuse to do their own research; they do not like facts that go against their infatuation with oil.

Sticking to the meeting from November 27 and the Conservatives' love for oil money, the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a lengthy rant, claiming that environmental groups demonize the oil and gas industry for money, not because they care about the environment. As someone who worked in national parks for decades, I find it insulting and absurd that the Conservatives would characterize Canadians who care about the environment as people looking only to make easy money.

After the member for Red Deer—Mountain View attacked environmentalists, he downplayed the importance of climate change and the actions the world took to protect the ozone layer. Former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney would have a problem with that. The member also insinuated that taking less action on climate change results in less severe wildfire seasons, with no evidence to back up that absurd claim. The Conservatives would rather talk about the last ice age than discuss how Canada can create sustainable jobs for workers now and into the future.

There is one point the member for Red Deer—Mountain View made in committee that served as a good refresher for me. He brought up the Organization for the Security and in Europe Co-operation Parliamentary Assembly and an intervention I did there, where we discussed how to get Europe off Russian oil and gas. The Conservative member voted against my resolution on carbon pricing in transitioning from Russian hydrocarbons, as did Russia and its closest allies. I can see the Conservative Party is following his example by voting against the Ukraine free trade agreement, which the Ukraine government has asked us to pass.

This anti-Ukraine sentiment connects to another member from our committee, the member for Lakeland. Last June, five champagne-sipping Conservative MPs, including this member, travelled on a lavish trip to London, England, and dined on thousands of dollars' worth of oysters, steak and champagne. One of her Conservative colleagues had his expenses paid for by the Danube Institute, a right-wing Hungarian think tank that has said, “the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are not Ukraine's sovereignty, but the victory of NATO, the expansion of the U.S. ‘deep state’ [and] ‘wokeism’”.

I know the member for Lakeland has a significant Ukrainian population in her constituency. I wonder how she feels about her colleague accepting sponsored travel from an organization that shamelessly amplifies Russian propaganda or her committee colleague voting with the Russians because they are opposed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. I wonder how workers in her riding feel knowing that she would wine and dine with organizations that defend the interests of oil executives rather than their workers.

Canadians expect their politicians to have a plan to fight climate change and to do so while creating sustainable jobs. Canadians are not interested in Conservative politicians wanting to make pollution free again. They want to hear how their government plans to secure sustainable jobs in Canada for the current generation of workers, as well as future generations.

As the world shifts to renewable energy, workers in the fossil fuel sector need to have sustainable jobs waiting for them. This short-sightedness from the Conservatives is very unfortunate for Canadian workers, who deserve to be represented by politicians who will prepare Canada for the green economy. The Conservatives do not care about environmental sustainability, workers or the economy, and their actions in the last few months have proven that.

We are here today because the Conservatives sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources refuse to do their jobs and study legislation that benefits Canadian workers. They have continued to waste committee resources; ultimately, this is taxpayer money. We had hours of endless points of order, with Conservatives refusing to respect the Chair and unhinged, fictitious climate change rants.

The MP for Lakeland seems to have taken on the role of Internet influencer, with her focus being on social media rather than sustainable jobs. In her videos describing our side of the aisle, she frequently uses the term “socialism” as a blanket label for anything that could bring change, invoking Conservative-planted fear in Canadians. One can maybe call it a “Red scare.” How interesting it is, though, that her province's Conservative premier, whom she supports, recently suggested turning their electricity sector into a province-owned enterprise. In turn, I suppose that through her own perception of the world, I should now refer to her as “comrade” instead of “colleague.”

In all seriousness, Canadians do not elect their representatives so they can act like Internet trolls. They expect their representatives to do the hard work of studying legislation and doing so in an honourable manner. It is time to end this Conservative filibuster of sustainable jobs. I urge my Conservative colleagues to do right by the workers in this country by supporting the sustainable jobs legislation.

Once this is done, we can move on to Bill C-49, the legislation regarding offshore wind. Let us work together for our constituents and the workers across this beautiful country, where the environment and economy go hand in hand.

Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50Government Orders

December 1st, 2023 / 10:10 a.m.


See context

Toronto—Danforth Ontario

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In this capacity I hold a responsibility to ensure the advancement of our legislative agenda in vital areas of public policy, including the future of our energy system.

I stand here today to provide an update on the status of Parliament's review of two very important bills, Bill C-50, Canada's sustainable jobs act, which this motion specifically addresses, and Bill C-49, amendments to the Atlantic accords.

Both of these vital pieces of legislation passed through second reading and were referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources well over a month ago. Parliamentary committees have a responsibility to Canadians to prioritize the laws that are put before them and to review these pieces of legislation. This is a principle responsibility of members on committee, and I believe that is well understood by every member in this House.

However, I regret to inform the House that after being at the natural resources committee for over a month, with more than 20 hours of scheduled and publicly available meeting time, the committee on which I am proud to serve has been ground to a standstill by Conservative members who are deliberately blocking the work of the committee. We have not even reached a vote yet on a routine scheduling motion to put the study of this bill in place.

Let me set the stage. On October 30, a member of the committee brought a motion for a concurrence study of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords act. This was a routine scheduling motion that would simply allow these pieces of legislation to be discussed and examined in a manner expected of elected officials.

Conservative members sought an amendment to that scheduling motion to add another area of study that was not a review of these bills and was designed to delay the bills that were before the committee for as long as possible. Not only that, they proceeded to stop votes on this motion via filibuster and then resorted to bringing subamendments to call witnesses from specific ridings. To date, our committee remains stuck because of Conservative obstruction. We are on the consideration of the subamendments, with no progress to getting to a decision on the scheduling motion for the concurrence study of these bills.

We are stuck in a scary pre-Halloween world. The Conservative Party continues to waste taxpayer resources with pointless interventions, unrelated amendments and nonsensical ramblings designed to block these bills from being discussed and from allowing workers to have a seat at the table.

For instance, the member of Parliament for Provencher wasted time discussing the challenges of drinking a triple-thick strawberry milkshake through a straw and about his love of muscle cars, including the Chevrolet Vega. I love the Vega. My grandmother had a Vega. That's a great conversation topic at a family table, but that is not on topic at all for something related to the bill, the sustainable jobs act, or the amendment they had proposed to that scheduling motion or the subamendment about calling witnesses from specific ridings. It was just a self-indulgent ramble to waste the committee's time.

The member of Parliament for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a tangent undermining the science of climate change and denying that extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods and wildfires are increasing in severity and frequency. I would expect better from a member of Parliament whose own community was blanketed in wildfire smoke this summer and faced severe drought.

The Conservative members were disrespectful, played childish games and did all that they could to ensure the voices of workers were silenced. If most Canadians had been able to watch this display of unpleasant and frankly unparliamentary behaviour, workers would have seen the disregard the members of the Conservative Party showed toward them. They would have been appalled.

Some Canadians were watching. A member of the natural resources committee explained that this horrible and shameless filibuster was being taught in university as an example of how parliamentary process can be undermined. Labour leaders also came to Ottawa to watch these proceedings, and they were not just shocked but outraged by what they saw.

After seeing the Conservatives resort to whatever tricks and conspiracy theories they could think of to block workers from coming to the table, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “What we saw...in the committee meeting last night is the worst kind of performative, deceptive politics.... The Conservative members of the committee...are counting on Canadians not [reading the bill]”.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, also in response to this horrible display, said, “By holding up this bill continuously, the Conservatives are not speaking for workers on this issue. They are not making sure workers have a choice or ability to have robust debate as they are holding up this bill. It is incredibly frustrating, it is disrespectful to workers who are worried about their futures and it is disrespectful to communities. We need it to stop.”

It gives me no pleasure to recount all this and what we have seen in terms of the time and taxpayer dollars, frankly, being wasted by the members of the Conservative Party in this nonsensical campaign of obstruction.

The scheduling motion, which we have been blocked from adopting for over a month, would have allowed for the efficient review of both bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, in a concurrent manner, allowing for orderly witness appearances and deliberation.

Unfortunately, here we are today, left with a Conservative Party that has ignored the pleas of workers, labour leaders, industry, environmental organizations, two premiers and all the other recognized parties in the House. They have asked the Conservatives to end the filibuster and allow these bills to at least be discussed. The motion we are debating today is the only option available to ensure that this important legislation moves forward in a reasonable and timely manner.

Before I return to the challenges faced in the natural resources committee, I will first remind the hon. members of what this legislation means for Canada and our future. Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is critical to Canadian workers, to our economy and to Canada's future.

I wonder what part of this bill is so egregious to Conservatives that they would not even be willing to allow us to begin the study at committee. That is where we are at. Is it the “Canadian” part of the Canadian sustainable jobs act? Bill C-50 supports Canadians in every province and territory by bringing their voices to the decision-making table.

The bill supports Canadians by ensuring that they can access the most up-to-date data, resources and staff, to help our growing clean industrial facilities. It supports Canadians, because it allows us to get ahead of the pack and ensure that skilled Canadian workers can lead as we build the future economy today.

Perhaps they are opposed to the fact that it is a Canadian “sustainable” jobs act. We certainly heard an earful at committee from the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires, which we saw in our country just this summer, as a narrative that leads people to believe in climate change, but, as he said, “The facts don't bear it out.” Based on his own statements, I do not believe that sustainability is his top priority.

Perhaps the Conservatives are opposed to the “jobs” part. We already know that they oppose and voted against the tens of thousands of jobs we are attracting to sites such as the Volkswagen gigafactory, Stellantis plants in Windsor and Brampton, Northvolt in Quebec, Michelin in Nova Scotia, Air Products and Heidelberg in Alberta, BHP in Saskatchewan, E-One Moli in B.C. and so many more.

We know that they are not just against job creation but also good-quality jobs, including union jobs. Right now, they refuse to share their stance on Bill C-58, which would ban replacement workers and ensure that unions and employers can negotiate better deals. This is a win for workers and the economy. They also refuse to condemn their Conservative provincial partners in Alberta, who are putting in place a $33-billion moratorium on renewable energy products and the thousands of jobs they create.

It seems that perhaps they oppose the Canadian sustainable jobs aspect of this legislation. I can tell members one thing that they are not opposing: the final word, which is “act”. Acting is precisely what they have been doing over the past 20 hours and, during committee work, for over a month. I would say that they have done so quite dramatically. It has been a month of acting.

They have been acting as though they care about workers, while they actively prevent the union that represents hundreds of thousands of Albertan workers from speaking on the public record. They have even been acting as though they care about due process and democracy, while they shout into microphones in committee and, for weeks on end, prevent members, such as the member for Timmins—James Bay, from speaking about the motion and the bill, when he clearly had the floor to speak.

In fact, we know that it is an act because they have almost exclusively used this filibuster to create fodder for social media clips and fundraising efforts. This is all premised on baseless assertions relating to a bill that they have clearly not begun to read or study.

It is clear that the Conservatives have no interest in serious issues of public policy and are not friends to working-class Canadians. They have deliberately worked to ensure that Parliament does not work, and they are purposely ignoring Canadian workers, communities, industries and civil society, which are calling for an end to their acting and to begin real legislative action.

That brings me, and all of us, back to today. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress acknowledged recently that there is a lot at stake here in terms of moving this bill forward. She said, “This bill can make a meaningful difference to workers. It can give a real voice to their future.... It can strengthen good jobs and vibrant communities by supporting the decarbonization of good union jobs that exist today in those communities, and it can ensure that...as the rest of the world is attracting investments in future industries and good jobs that Canadian workers are not left behind in those investments.”

This delay is preventing Parliament from conducting an in-depth study of these two important bills. Despite the Conservatives' filibustering in committee, the Liberals and others continued to work with environmental groups and experts, unions, businesses, indigenous peoples and others in order to move forward on shaping our net-zero future.

Meanwhile, the Conservative energy critic publicly committed to blocking, delaying and challenging workers to prevent them from sitting down at the bargaining table and entering the workplace. We cannot let this ideological and obstructionist attitude curb our economic potential. I would like to quote the executive director of the Climate Action Network, who said, “The Conservatives can filibuster this bill but they cannot filibuster the energy transition.”

Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is an essential bill that will help Canadian workers build a prosperous economy. It also builds on the work that our committee did last year when it studied the future of sustainable jobs. During a previous study of this bill in committee, the Conservatives filibustered in dozens of meetings to prevent the witnesses from speaking, because they are obviously afraid of workers being represented.

At the same time, we are taking action. That includes making historic investments in clean technologies in budget 2023 and taking collaborative action with other levels of government and international partners. This solid foundation has put our economy and Canadian workers in a position of strength that will continue to build if we pass Bill C-50.

I would like to share with the House the five key elements that make up this legislation.

First, it would use guiding principles, such as social dialogue, that let us learn from international best practices to get this right.

Second, it would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of workers, industry, experts, indigenous peoples, youth and others who would provide independent advice to the government on an annual basis and engage with Canadians.

Third, it would commit to publishing action plans every five years. The plans would build on the council's expertise and ensure that Canada is able to continue to chart a path forward that responds to our labour needs in decades to come.

Fourth, it would coordinate action across the federal government through a sustainable job secretariat.

Fifth, it would designate responsibilities to ministers for implementing this legislation as a standard practice.

The other side may fearmonger and claim that, with this bill, the sky will fall and pigs will fly. However, the fact is that these are responsible and targeted legislative measures to ensure that workers have a seat at the table and that we get them on job sites that we are building right across this country. The opportunities for workers are enormous, including the opportunities that exist today.

Since taking office, the government has invested in clean growth and building a strong economic future, and our work is being noticed around the world. Companies are choosing to invest in Canada and create jobs here, because of our very clean electrical grid and the work we are doing to support clean technologies. The Conservative delays are risking the once-in-a-generation opportunity for Canadians to take the lead in these jobs and in the innovations that will reduce carbon emissions right across this country.

By the end of this decade, RBC predicts that the global move toward a low-carbon economy will add as many as 400,000 new jobs to the Canadian workforce. To best seize this opportunity, we need legislation that helps us to get the right skills and training to workers today, which Bill C-50 will do. Workers, labour market experts and employers have been clear, and so has this Parliament when we sent Bill C-50 to committee to be studied. Because of the Conservative tactics at committee, we have not been able to do this.

When we talk about the job opportunities, I also want to make sure we remember that some of these jobs are going to be due to offshore wind energy, which Bill C-49 was designed to facilitate. The delays we have faced at the natural resources committee have prevented us from doing the concurrent studies of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, at the very moment when we are being told by Atlantic premiers and residents that they want to see this move forward. Let us not forget that the motion Conservatives have been delaying for over a month was one to concurrently review Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, allow witnesses to appear and allow the committee to make the most efficient use of parliamentary time. The witnesses would have appeared by now.

I want to make it very clear that we have an important choice to make today. On the one hand, we can choose, as Conservatives have, to waste our time waxing poetic about the days when it was easier to sip triple-thick milkshakes through a straw and drive around in muscle cars that were not even built in Canada. On the other, we can choose what Canadians and workers want. We can work to build an economy for the future that includes having workers at the table as we decide those next steps. We can build cars here in Canada, with skilled jobs, skilled workers and investments that are being made right here. We have that opportunity to be creating well-paying jobs that are, often, union jobs. It can be about developing the energies the world wants, such as offshore wind in the Atlantic provinces, in Canada. That is going to be the energy that powers our future and creates well-paying jobs.

To me, as I stand here, the Liberals have made this choice very clear: We are rolling up our sleeves to stand alongside Canadian workers and build that economy of the future. We are ready to build an economy that is responsive and has those opportunities put forward.

What the Conservatives have clearly chosen, from what we are seeing at committee, is to spend their time talking about themselves and not talking about Canadian workers and the needs of our country. That is why, today, I am asking the House to support the motion that has been put forward to allow the legislation to move forward and to do the work we need to do. It is important for the House to respect what it has voted upon in prioritizing the legislation to be sent to committee to be studied. It is also about respecting Canadian workers and respecting what Canadians expect to see us do in this place. I would ask that we continue to work together towards that.

Canadians want us to claim our share of the global clean energy market, and the hundreds of thousands of high-quality, sustainable jobs that will result.

Parliament has a duty to study and to advance these two vital pieces of legislation. We cannot allow ourselves to sit back and allow rage farming and social media clips to be happening at committee. We need to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. I stand here today asking that this be exactly what we work together to have done. That is why the motion we are discussing today would enable an expeditious review of the much shorter Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill. Then, it would allow for the committee to review Bill C-49 afterwards.

I would remind the House that we have been debating a scheduling motion, actually not even a scheduling motion but a subamendment to an amendment to a scheduling motion, for over a month. Since October 30, we have been debating that simple point. We have not been allowed to study the bill.

The Conservatives have points they want to register about the bill itself. The place to have done it would have been in the study of the bill. However, the Conservatives chose otherwise. They chose to filibuster a scheduling motion. That is not how we get work done here. It is not respectful to the process, to each other, or to Canadians and the workers who sent us here to get the job done. That is what we are asking today: Let us get the job done. Let us make sure that we do what Canadians sent us here to do. Let us get to studying the bill we have before us, Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill.

November 30th, 2023 / 12:40 p.m.


See context

Vice-President and Deputy Leader, Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Robin Guy

Our west coast is Canada's largest gateway to the world, handling over 800 million dollars' worth of cargo, from agri-food and potash to critical minerals and household necessities, every single day. That accounts for a quarter of Canada's total trade.

This summer we saw over 35 days of uncertainty and disruptions to our west coast gateways, including Vancouver, Vancouver Island and Prince Rupert, which caused major delays for Canadian businesses in virtually every sector across the country.

I'll repeat that 25% of our total trade stopped. That meant that Canadian potash had to cut production and sales during the strike, causing those who rely on Canadians for fertilizer to look elsewhere to ensure that they could continue to grow crops. This meant that businesses looking for replacement parts to fix machinery were delayed, causing production to slow or stop. It meant that fruits and vegetables that we bring to Canada were left to rot in containers as opposed to making it onto shelves for consumers to enjoy. Plain and simple, it meant that goods were going to become more expensive, thus fuelling inflation.

I'll stress to the committee that the damage from a strike does not simply take place in the days when workers are picketing. Businesses need certainty. They need to know that, if they are importing or exporting goods, those goods will get to where they need to go when they need to be there. If not, then suppliers will go elsewhere, and there's no guarantee that they'll come back.

When looking at Canada's record, many of our trading partners are beginning to question if Canada can reliably get goods to market. We saw that shortly after the west coast port strike with the St. Lawrence Seaway and with the uncertainty that is looming at the port of Montreal.

I must state that the Canadian chamber respects the right to collective bargaining. We believe sincerely that the best deals are reached at the table, but when negotiations break down and meaningful bargaining is no longer possible, the Canadian business community expects the government to show leadership and act in the best interests of the country.

The Canadian chamber calls on the government to use the tools that it currently has in its tool box to prevent a strike and then solve it. We applaud the Minister of Labour for directing a senior mediator to recommend terms for settlement to reach a fair deal. Unfortunately, we did not see that action until nearly two weeks into the port strike, when significant damage to the Canadian economy and Canada's reputation had already taken place, and that dragged on for further weeks while the union failed to ratify the agreement.

The review initiated by the Minister of Labour under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code is a key opportunity to do this to equip the government with more tools and to be able to avoid labour disruption while protecting the public interest. We need to make sure that the government has the ability to force the two sides together in the form of a binding resolution. We can't have the government waiting on the sidelines for two weeks before action is taken.

Canada's supply chains are only as strong as their weakest link. Government can't solve all of our supply chain issues, but it must look to enable policies that will enable trade and strengthen our supply chains.

Less than a month ago, the Minister of Labour told Canadians that our credibility as a trading nation depends on the stable operations of our supply chains and that we must do everything we can to preserve that stability. We couldn't agree more. However, the introduction of Bill C-58, which aims to prohibit the use of replacement workers during strikes, suggests that the government wants to move away from preserving stability. It is, in fact, doubling down on Canada being seen as an unreliable trading partner. We need our leaders to engage in an honest dialogue that will provide our government with the tools it needs to address our labour challenges while allowing employers and employees to bargain in the way they should.

For the sake of our economy, I would urge all parties to vote against this legislation.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.