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.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right that the legislation is long overdue. The way the legislation has come together is the right way. It has been a tripartite type of agreement where business, government, and labour and unions are at the table working together. With respect to the prolonged period, the 18 months, we are working together with those groups. That is what we want to do: ensure that we get it right and that we have all the pieces in place so we have the best labour stability here in Canada. We are learning from what is happening in Quebec, with its legislation, and in British Columbia. We are taking all the best ideas and bringing them into Bill C-58. That is what we have done. We will do it at the table, working with all the parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

I am proud to speak to and defend Bill C-58, which proposes amendments to both the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. With good reason, the labour movement has consistently criticized the use of replacement workers, deeming it destructive and unfair. Bill C-58 is about restoring that long-overdue fairness and about levelling the playing field.

Relying on replacement workers not only diverts attention from the bargaining table but also prolongs disputes, ultimately poisoning the employer-worker relationship for generations. The crucial question that arises is why Canada should now consider banning the use of replacement workers. Practices' merely being customary does not automatically render them justifiable. Should a worker's right to engage in meaningful labour strikes be compromised by the looming threat of replacement? Is a bargaining table where negotiating power is significantly curtailed truly fair? Can the reliance on replacement workers be deemed appropriate in 21st-century labour relations? The answers to these questions are no, no and no.

My parents fled a right-wing fascist dictatorship to come to Canada to work hard and to contribute to our democracy. In dictatorship Portugal, organized labour and unions were banned because the dictator did not want workers to be treated fairly, to have the right to assemble or to have bargaining rights, and he definitely did not want workers to be able to strike.

I stood on picket lines as an eight-year-old, alongside union members, my parents. My father, a proud member of United Steelworkers at John Inglis and Company, a highly profitable company, contributed to the production of industrial machinery here in Canada. The USW union and the Teamsters were two unions my dad belonged to, and my mother, Maria Fonseca, was a card-carrying member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE. I can attest to the pivotal role these unions played in enhancing the life of our family and the lives of thousands of union employees, and benefiting all workers.

Recalling a distressing moment from my childhood, I vividly remember when my father, Joachim, “Jack”, Fonseca, informed my mother that his union brothers and sisters would be commencing a strike the next day, a chilly February day. His fight was centred around securing better wages, improving benefits, gaining advancements for health and safety conditions and safeguarding his pension. The ensuing strike lasted nearly two months, with replacement workers being a significant factor in its prolonged duration. The company opted to deploy non-unionized management personnel on the production line and brought in replacement workers, commonly referred to as “scabs”. Additionally, it exploited vulnerable workers, employees who were struggling, by encouraging them to cross the picket line. This strategic move not only hindered the progress of negotiations but also poisoned relations between employees and employer and led to the deterioration of friendships among co-workers.

Extended disputes of this nature tend to bring out the worst, placing workers in untenable positions where they must choose between asserting their rights and providing for their family. Recognizing the detrimental impact of such situations, various jurisdictions have enacted legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers. Quebec implemented such legislation in 1977 to curb the violent confrontations arising from strikes and picket lines in the province. Similarly, in 1993, the Government of British Columbia passed comparable legislation in response to the escalating tensions between employers and the labour movement. The outcomes in Quebec and B.C. following the passage of such legislation were notable. The frequency of strikes decreased, providing for more predictability and stability.

We consistently emphasize the importance of focusing on being at the bargaining table. Conversely, on the other side of the aisle, Conservatives always seem to have jumped up and introduced back-to-work legislation, as they say, and to have used replacement workers. It is just wrong. It is crucial to acknowledge that striking represents a last resort for workers, as no one desires to lose benefits and rely on strike pay. Collective bargaining, while challenging, remains the preferred solution.

Our economy relies on employers and unions engaging in meaningful negotiations to secure the best and most resilient agreements. Bill C-58 seeks to maintain focus on the bargaining table, promoting stability and certainty in supply chains and in the overall economy. While each industry and bargaining table may differ, the overarching goal is consistent: keeping parties engaged at the table, fostering a more predictable process and eliminating distractions. The legislation aims to achieve these outcomes for business, employers and unions alike. Emphasizing the importance of this approach is not only a smart strategy but also the right one. Labour has long advocated for such measures, and the positive reactions from labour leaders since the bill's introduction underscore the significance of the bill. As expressed by Gil McGowan from the Alberta Federation of Labour, “[t]his is Canadian politics at its best. This is Parliament working for workers.” Past victories by unions have significantly enhanced the ability of workers to enjoy a decent quality of life. I highlight these points because, now more than ever, legislation supporting workers is crucial.

There are members of Parliament, including the Conservative leader, with a history of attacking labour, attacking unions and undermining the interests of workers. The Conservative leader has been a strong advocate for implementing U.S.-style right-to-work laws in Canada. It is telling that the Conservatives and their leader avoid mentioning the words “union”, “labour” or “scab”. These omissions speak volumes about their anti-labour stance.

Unionized workers are currently leading the way in negotiating substantial wage increases amidst rising inflation. Moreover, it is great that an increasing number of young Canadian workers are expressing interest in the labour movement, initiating union efforts in diverse workplaces such as Uber, Starbucks and grocery stores.

Let us not forget, from during Stephen Harper's administration, the Conservative leader's anti-worker Bill C-377. The Conservatives vigorously opposed card-check legislation, which aimed to facilitate unionization. They opted instead to make things more difficult for workers and to afford employers more time to intervene in union initiatives. The Liberal government, in response, enacted legislation to reverse the anti-union Conservative amendments under Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, bills that undermined unions and the ability of workers to organize. Across Canada, employers invest millions in legal, consulting and security services to thwart union drives, ensuring their lack of success. There have been employers that have helicoptered replacement workers over picket lines into job sites.

The Conservative leader and the Conservative Party advocate importing into Canada U.S.-style right-to-work laws that weaken the labour movement by hindering unions and collective bargaining. Shamefully, the Conservative leader actively promotes right-to-work laws here in Canada. In 2012, the Conservative leader spearheaded a campaign to allow public sector workers to opt out of union dues, directly challenging the Rand formula, a rule backed by the Supreme Court that allows unions to collect dues. The Conservative leader is, unequivocally, an anti-labour-union proponent, aligning himself with extreme right-wing, MAGA politics. Despite the pivotal role played by the labour movement in securing progressive labour laws and improved working conditions, the Conservatives consistently fail to acknowledge these contributions. The Conservative leader's history reflects consistent support for anti-union, right-to-work policies looking to rob individuals of civil and job rights.

In contrast, Bill C-58 legislation under consideration would be unique, arising from tripartite collaboration among employers, workers and the government. It aims to enhance labour relations in Canada, fostering greater stability and certainty for all citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I do not think we have talked about Bill C‑58 in the past 15 minutes. Bill C‑58 is an anti-scab bill.

Scabs have not been used back home in Quebec since 1977. I am very pleased to see that there is equity between Quebec workers with a Quebec employer and Quebec workers with a Canadian employer.

The bill is very sound. I would like my colleague to explain why the Conservatives object to it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my deepest condolences to the member and his family. It was very moving when he shared the story about the passing of his mother. My own mother passed away one year and 22 days ago, in November last year. There is not a day I do not think of her. I know it will be the same for him. I wish him all the best in honouring her memory and in working through the grief that comes from her passing.

I want to come back to Bill C-58 because the member spoke very movingly about his mother, as well as other issues, like housing and other bills, but did not actually speak to Bill C-58. The NDP has pushed so hard for this and forced the government to table the bill because of the use of replacement workers in the Windsor area, for example, and Essex County. I know he is familiar with this. Right across the country, Rogers has locked out workers for Shaw cable. Dozens of steelworkers are on the picket line because of the Rogers' lockout, which is using replacement workers in the federal sphere of jurisdiction. It is simply untenable.

As has been pointed out, Bill C-58 would seek to bring a more rapid close to labour disputes because it would mean that CEOs of major corporations would not be able to run roughshod over the rights of their workers, but would have to negotiate in good faith.

What remains a question for me is whether Conservatives will stand with working Canadians and vote for Bill C-58. Could the member tell me if they will vote in favour of the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we do extend our most sincere condolences to the member and his family.

It is interesting trying to draw Conservatives out on how they are going to vote. Here we have labour and others who want to see this legislation pass to committee. I have listened closely to the member opposite, and I cannot tell exactly what the Conservative Party is going to do on this. This is Bill C-58.

Just last week, we had debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The Ukrainian heritage community was very excited about that legislation and wanted the House to pass that legislation. Like today, we were left wondering why it was that the Conservative Party did not seem to support Ukraine.

Can the member give a clear indication as to why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House to represent the amazing folks of Essex. I give all my thanks to God for giving me the opportunity.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I lost my momma. If the House would allow it, I would like to share a few words before I dive into Bill C-58.

Mom would text me during question period to say, “Christopher, you are not wearing a tie today, so you must not be speaking.” Mom would also text me to say, “Christopher, stop chewing gum”, “Smile”, or “Christopher, wake up.”

The little things in life get us through, and the real little things in life were mom's chocolate chip cookies. Mom was known on the Hill for her chocolate chip cookies. However, if a member did something bad, I would get a text saying that the member would not be getting a chocolate chip cookie that day.

She was a servant. She served beyond belief. She is the great reason I am where I am, and why I am who I am.

Although those texts have come to a very abrupt end, after she spent only 13 days in hospital battling cancer, her legacy lives on. If my dad and my brothers Jeff and Kim are watching, I want them to know that Helen, our momma, is in the House of Commons with us all here today. As I promised momma at her bedside, I will make her proud and live to serve. I love her. I thank the House for indulging me.

Bill C-58 has two main elements. First, it would ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, such as banks, airports and telecommunications, but not in the federal public service. It would replace an existing, albeit much more limited, prohibition on the use of replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code.

Second, Bill C-58 would amend the maintenance of activities process to encourage not only quicker agreement between employers and trade unions on what activities should be maintained in the case of a strike or a lockout, but also faster decision-making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board in this connection. The provisions of Bill C-58 would only apply to federally regulated workers. If enacted, the provisions of Bill C-58 would enter into force 18 months after royal assent has been received.

It brings forward a lot of questions and a lot of discussion. I would start by saying that I am very proud to be the shadow minister, the critic, for labour. I have travelled across this country, literally from coast to coast to coast, speaking with both unionized and non-unionized workers in places such as Halifax; St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Vancouver, at the Port of Vancouver; and Montreal.

I have been across this country, meeting with both unionized and non-unionized workforces, their management teams, and the folks with their boots on the ground. What I hear all the time is them saying, “Just let me go to work. I want to go to work. I don't really want to be on strike. What I really want to do is have a good-paying job so I can ultimately feed my family, put diapers on my babies, fill their little mouths with pablum and afford to buy my wife some flowers. I can't do that when I'm on strike.”

At the end of the day, we have seen an unprecedented amount of strikes across this country over the last number of years. Every time I turn around, we are dealing with another strike. Why is that? One has to really wonder if it is the cost of living. Is it the cost of food, which our workers cannot afford? Is it the high interest rates? Is it the carbon tax on fuel and food? Is that the reason why? It always goes back to the same question: Why are we seeing an unprecedented amount of strikes? We have to believe that it is due to inflation. It is due to the cost of living, as well as uncertainty, no doubt.

I will speak quickly to the topic of the Stellantis battery plant in Windsor. One good thing about Air Canada is that it is almost always delayed, which allows me more time to speak to my constituents back home when I am at the airport.

Last night, I spoke to someone at IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who said what the problem is. We have an amazing workforce here in Canada of electrical workers. They are bringing them in from Manitoba and Alberta. They are there in Windsor. They are literally in Windsor to start to work. However, they are very concerned about all of the folks potentially being brought in from South Korea to do all work. In the past, those workers did all the work at tier 2 and tier 3. They have done all that work. He said he understood that 10, 20 or 30 people may need to be brought in to program the computers, but the rest of it they already know how to do.

Then I spoke to the carpenter's union, and they said the same thing. They have the whole workforce there. Why are folks being brought in from other places to do the work that they, quite frankly, are trained to do?

The part of this bill that is somewhat confusing to me is that it is only for federally regulated workers. It does not apply to federally regulated public sector workers. If the government is going to tell businesses that there will be no replacement workers, why would the government not do it for itself? It makes one wonder.

We have had amazing, amazing yields in southwestern Ontario this year from our farmers. Some of the highest bumper crops that we have see in a long time. About 90% to 92% of our grain is exported. If we cannot get the grain onto the ships and overseas, we have a major issue, and we have a major issue right now.

There was just an issue on the Great Lakes, which, by the way, got solved. It is like what was reported yesterday in the news about No Frills. The issue with workers at No Frills was solved yesterday, just like at the Port of Montreal and the Port of Vancouver. How were they solved? They were solved at the table through democracy. There is always a solution when we speak. There is always a solution when people come to the table to have good, fair, strong, respectful dialogue. That is how things get solved.

Because I sit on the transport committee, am a bona fide farmer and was a businessman, my concern is that this potential legislation could drive fewer jobs for the country. It is a matter of fact that this could drive potential Canadian business investment away from Canada, which would ultimately mean fewer jobs.

Ironically, at 9 a.m. tomorrow, I head to the Senate to do my darnedest to get Bill C-241, my private member's bill, through committee. Bill C-241 is a bill that would allow the writeoff of travel expenses for both unionized and non-unionized skilled trades workers. I do not know of anyone in the House who would disagree with me when I say that Canada is absolutely in a major housing crisis, and Bill C-241 would allow the mobility of our skilled trades, both unionized and non-unionized workers, to travel across the country.

I look at Stellantis and the entire project, the upwards of $50 billion for the three battery plants, and I know one thing for sure: We need skilled trade workers at those sites. However, I also know that we need to build homes from coast to coast to coast. Hopefully, tomorrow the Senate will give us the green light, so to speak, and Bill C-241 will get through the Senate to support our skilled trade workers.

For clarity, for anybody watching at home, and I am sure a lot are watching me, this is only for federally regulated workers. This does not dive into the provinces and their regulations.

This is going to sound goofy, but during the Port of Vancouver strike, a message was left at my office, and I called the gentleman back. He said he owns a coffee shop, but he cannot get any cups for the coffee, so he will have to shut his doors because he ordered the cups from overseas. It sounds small and insignificant, but that is one more business that shut its doors, is not paying taxes, that is not employing people or laying them off. It is one more business that Canada is, quite frankly, bleeding.

There is nothing more important than our labour force. My father always said it best. Someone can have the greatest widget in the world, but they cannot build it and they cannot sell it without people. There is not a business I know of that is not about the people, and they only ever will be.

The answer is very simple: Get to the table, get the folks at the table and have a conversation. Deliberations have worked in the past. That is where the answer lies.

In closing, I will just finish with the following. I come from the business world but I also was boots on the ground. In my role as shadow minister for labour, I met some pretty extraordinary folks. I think about the folks at the ILWU out in Vancouver, who treated me with so much respect when I visited them two or three times. I think about the folks out in Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. I think about the folks in my own backyard in Essex. Again, it is resounding that it is only about the people.

There is only one way that we are going to rebuild Canada, that Canada is going to be built, that we are going to have enough homes, that we are going to have the manufacturing and we are going to be on the front line in leading-edge technology, and that is with people. However, they need to be Canadian people. They cannot be folks from overseas who are taking away the jobs of Canadians.

I want to thank the Speaker for allowing me to celebrate my mother and allowing me to have a bit of freedom in my speech today. I am so darn passionate and compassionate when it comes to our labour force and it means the world to me.

The House resumed from November 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a wonderful thing to be able to speak. It's something we haven't had a lot of opportunity to do. I am grateful that we are able to weigh in on the subamendment we have today, as well as the amendment and, ultimately, the main motion.

Like my two colleagues before me, I would like to encourage us to move forward as expeditiously as possible. We have two very important pieces of legislation before us. I'm hearing from thousands of Canadians in my constituency office about the importance they see in Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There's an appeal that we get on with this, and in large part, that we make room for labour at the table.

I need to reflect on the fact that it is interesting how our Conservative colleagues, particularly the leader, talk about being friends with labour; yet, every chance that the leader and his caucus have to prevent things from moving forward, they seem to take that opportunity.

We're seeing it with Bill C-58 and Bill C-50. I really would hope that.... We have these important pieces of legislation before us, and I'd like to see us actually move forward for the benefit of Canadian workers.

We've heard a lot of discussion about whether this is a programming or schedule motion. I'd like to remind all my colleagues here that the original motion, when we finally get to it, will allow us to deal with both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 concurrently. I think that's a really wise way to go. It would allow us to have witnesses, the minister and others to deal with both pieces of legislation, so we can get them back to the House in a timely manner.

I won't take up a lot more time. I'm ready to move forward with the vote on the subamendment and, hopefully, a vote on the amendment, so we can get to the main motion as soon as possible. We can build on the work that our committee did previously when hearing from many witnesses on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. We have the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia asking us to move forward with those pieces of legislation as well.

The motion we have from my colleague is a very good motion that will help us advance both pieces of legislation and, ultimately, get them back to the House, so the House can do its job and move forward with the legislation.

That's my intervention on the subamendment we have before us this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-58, a very important piece of legislation. It was a commitment made by both the Liberals and the NDP in the last election, something we have been able to work together on in order to bring forward legislation to the House so we could provide a better environment for workers to be able to negotiate new contracts or re-negotiate existing contracts with employers. That is what the bill seeks to do.

We know that when there are individuals who want to go on strike, they are usually doing it for a fairly important reason. They are sometimes doing it because their wages are not reflecting the reality of what they believe they should be paid. They are doing it because they are worried about the conditions in which they are working. They are doing it because they are worried about job security and what their employers are providing for them.

We know that when they do make the decision to go on strike, which does and, quite frankly, should happen from time to time in order to properly demonstrate the need and the requirement to change working conditions, it has to be taken very seriously.

The employer's having the opportunity to bring in scab labour, replacement workers who are there while negotiating, significantly takes away from the employer's ability to negotiate in good faith. Think about that for a second. What if someone were on the management side of a firm and had to negotiate, and the only thing being held against them was the ability of people to strike? What if, at the same time, they had the opportunity to bring people in to replace the workers while management was in the process of negotiating with the striking employees? Management would not face the same realities that those who are on strike would.

When a union decides to go on strike, extreme hardships can be felt by the employees. They are not paid anymore. Sometimes they are given small stipends from their union, but it is nowhere near what they would be making normally. They are taking on hardships in order to stand up for their rights. If an employer has the opportunity to negotiate while having replacement or scab labour in place, they are going to be negotiating from a much more comfortable position in terms of their ability to continue to function. While employees have the hardships imposed upon them through either a strike or a lockout, in the same vein, we have to make sure that the negotiating position is balanced. That is done by ensuring that employers have to feel the same kind of pain, for lack of a better expression. They have to be faced with the same reality that if they do not get to a deal quickly, they cannot continue to function in their business in the manufacturing sector or whatever it might be. As a result, they have to be motivated.

We know that the best deals are those that are made at the bargaining table. We know that when we can encourage, through various different pieces of legislation, both sides to sit down and work out a deal, it will produce the best result for everybody. It can be a messy process, and we have seen that time and time again through the history of this country, in terms of organized labour. It can be messy when people are striking. Just yesterday, I was driving through Quebec and saw a number of people protesting in a strike that was ongoing there.

This is part of the process. It is about bringing to the attention of the employer that there is a significant need for the employee that is not being addressed by the employer. That is why the best deals are those that are made at the table by bringing the two parties together to be able to do that. That is why the legislation before us would specifically prohibit employers from using the following workers from doing the work of striking or locked out employees: first, new hires, such as employees and managers hired after notice to bargain collectively is given; and, second, contractors, regardless of when they were hired.

The bill also seeks to prohibit employers from using the services of employees in a bargaining unit when that bargaining unit is in a full strike or lockout where all employees in the unit are expected to stop working. I think this is really important, because a union's strength is in its unity and membership. Unions operate in a democratic fashion. They elect their leadership, which is there to represent them; it is critically important to ensure that some who might not have voted in favour are still subject to the leadership that they have democratically elected. I can see how it might be tempting otherwise for individuals to do this, but again, at the end of the day, we know that the best deals are those that are made at the table and not by the influences that come from using outside forms of labour in the meantime. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. I will not get into detail, but they relate primarily to health and safety and environmental impacts on the property of the employer.

However, this bill also seeks to ensure that, if unions believe that an employer is violating a ban, they may complain to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This is an independent administrative tribunal whose job is to resolve workplace disputes and certain appeals that arise under the Criminal Code, among other acts. The board can investigate, and if it agrees with the complaint, order the employer to stop the violation. It is also really important that a hefty fine comes along with this to further discourage the employer from moving toward this kind of action. It sets out a maximum fine of $100,000 per day if the employer is prosecuted and convicted of violating the prohibition. Members can see that the intent of the bill is really to put as many measures in place to prevent these activities of employing scab or replacement workers for the purposes of, once again, ensuring that people get to the bargaining table and having meaningful discussions there.

One other thing I want to address, and perhaps I pre-empt a question from my NDP colleagues, is that NDP members have been steadfast in their support for the bill. However, they have said that they forced the government to do this; I do not quite look at it like that. We did run on this. It is on page 22 of our last election platform, but it may have been slightly different. We may have worked on this in a way with the NDP to make the bill even stronger, which is great. That is what this entire process is about. Our Westminster parliamentary system is based on the idea that, if one party does not form a majority, we work with other political parties to develop strategies and policies that we can bring forward on behalf of the Canadian people, in our case anyhow. That is what we are seeing.

Therefore, I think that the NDP should rightfully take credit for some of this, as they have done good work on it. I also think that the government has done extremely good work on it, and the Liberal Party has been committed to it as well. I hear that call from the NDP, but I respectfully disagree that it was forced. Nobody forced anybody to do anything. This was one of the terms of that agreement that we came to in order to work together in a productive manner.

To that end, I am very glad that there is another political party in this room made up of adults, when it comes to doing meaningful things for the people we represent. I would say two, one of which is the Bloc. It is not always just about saying no, because the objective is to be an obstructionist at any cost. The objective is genuine in this agreement. I quite often see a genuine objective from the Bloc as well to advance better policy, ideas and legislation for the people we individually represent.

However, I am very concerned, once again, about the lack of clarity on this issue from my colleagues on the other side of the House, the Conservatives. They have given a couple of speeches on this. They were asked a direct question just moments ago by my NDP colleague about whether they will support the bill. They skate around it, they do not answer, they give vague statements, they are not concrete on it and they will not even say that they will support the bill to get to committee, which is just an initial step.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-58, was unnecessary. As someone who values the work of labour unions, a person who appreciates the historic impact they have had on improving the rights and working conditions of Canadian workers, I feel it is sad that we have to consider whether replacement workers should be allowed in federally regulated workplaces.

The use of replacement workers comes about when either a unionized workforce has gone on strike or an employer has locked out its workers. In either case, there are no real winners, so what would bring workers or employers to such a position? Why would they feel it necessary to take such drastic measures if nobody wins in such a situation? The answer is simple. If it seems that Canada has seen more labour strife than at any other time in recent history, the reason is simple. The policies of the Liberal government have made it difficult for Canadian workers to make ends meet.

Workers expect government to look out for their best interests. We have a government that apparently does not understand what is good for people. We see record inflation, food prices spiralling out of control and the dream of home ownership dying for millions of Canadians. Those who are lucky enough to find a place to rent have discovered that rents have also skyrocketed. What is the Liberals' response to these economic problems? Its response includes inflationary deficits and higher taxes, government spending that seems out of control, the highest national debt in the history of Canada and no ideas of how to fix the mess they have created. When the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything for everyone, housing costs have doubled, mortgage costs are 150% higher than they were before the Liberal government took office and half of Canadians say that they are $200 or less from going broke, it is no wonder workers feel abandoned by the government.

The Conservative Party supports the rights of workers to organize democratically, bargain collectively and peacefully withdraw and withhold their services from an employer. We also believe the government should work with unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to develop dispute settlement mechanisms and encourage their use to avoid or minimize disruption to services for Canadians. Bill C-58 will apply to about one million workers in federally regulated industries, many of which are sectors that are critical to national life. For this reason alone, it is important to study this legislation at committee to hear from witnesses, both those who are in favour and those who are against the legislation, to allow members to better understand the implications of this bill.

I am sure the Liberals will tell me that such a study is not really necessary, that they know what they are doing and that this legislation should be passed with a minimum of scrutiny. After all, the Liberals tell us they know what is best for the country, but anyone who questions their dogma, they view as a heretic. In the church that is the Liberal Party, I would be a heretic. I have seen too many Liberal ministers telling Canadians that they know what is best for them when they obviously do not. The government would like us to believe that the Liberals are infallible, but all too often the truth is that they do not have a clue what they are doing. That may be true also with this bill.

I would think that unions would view Bill C-58 as correcting a tilted playing field that has been in favour of employers. They expect that, once this act is passed, the strikes and lockouts will be shorter. In the same way, I would think employers would see Bill C-58 as favouring unions, with the potential of prolonged strikes and lockouts. These are conflicting viewpoints, and whichever one we might adopt may depend on our view of the current balance of power between unions and employers.

Our job in the House is to find a way to craft legislation that is fair to both workers and employers, which is another reason to ensure that we consider the bill carefully so we do not have to return to the subject to fix mistakes made by a rushed process. When the minister spoke in the House just a couple of days ago, he said that consideration of the bill would not be rushed and that it is one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen. I am glad he sees the need for a long and hard examination of the proposed legislation. We all want more deals to be made at the bargaining table. Strikes and lockouts are harmful to workers, employers and the Canadian economy as a whole. The Liberals seem to think that the bill would result in fewer labour disruptions. It will be interesting to hear what witnesses say when Bill C-58 is examined at committee.

One of the areas that may be contentious is allowing employers to hire replacement workers as long as they deal solely with the situation that presents or could reasonably be expected to present an imminent or serious threat. Those threats could be to the life, health or safety of any person; destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises. Allowing replacement workers in such situations seems reasonable. The problem I foresee is one of determining exactly what the situations are when such hiring would be allowed. I would expect unions would quite naturally attempt to limit the use of replacement workers, while employers would try to stretch the definition as much as possible, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe employers and unions alike would be reasonable in all situations and there would be a clear understanding of what represents a safety threat, property damage or environmental damage.

More likely, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would find itself much busier if this legislation is passed, as it tries to work out the details of the legislation in practice as opposed to in theory. No one, not workers, not employers and not the public, likes labour disruptions. In an ideal world, they would not happen. Of course, in an ideal world, workers would not have to worry about having to make a choice between paying the rent and paying for groceries. In an ideal world, Canadians would not be wondering why their government was offering tax exemptions on one form of home heating fuel and not on the others that contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions. In an ideal world, food bank use would be decreasing instead of increasing, and Canadians would not have to worry whether they can afford the ever-increasing cost of food.

However, under the current government, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where the Liberal carbon tax keeps going up, increasing the cost of everything. Canadian workers and employers alike are feeling squeezed by a government that has shown by its fiscal policies that it does not care about either of them. Unions and businesses may have differing views about Bill C-58, but they do have one thing in common: They all know that it is time for the Liberal government to go.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

I stand before the House today to discuss Bill C-58, a piece of legislation concerning the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. This bill, brought forth by the Minister of Labour and Seniors, is a clear product of the NDP-Liberal coalition's agenda. While it is important to look at the contents of the bill, it is also very much of equal importance to look at how the NDP-Liberal coalition is hurting workers they claim they are helping.

In this debate, we must be mindful of the delicate balance between protecting workers' rights and maintaining a healthy, competitive business environment. It is our duty to examine how this bill fits into the larger narrative of the current Liberal government's failed policies, which have wide-reaching effects on the Canadian workforce and the overall economic landscape. As representatives of the Canadian people, we have a responsibility to evaluate this legislation not just in isolation but within the context of its potential impact on our nation's prosperity and the well-being of its citizens.

In recent years, we have witnessed an escalating trend in labour disputes across Canada, with a staggering total of 269 major work stoppages. They include both lockouts and strikes in just the past two years. This disturbing rise in labour unrest is a direct consequence of the current Liberal government's policies over the last eight years.

The Prime Minister's inflationary policies have significantly contributed to this turmoil, leaving workers in a dangerous position, struggling just to make ends meet. The harsh reality is that Canadian workers are increasingly finding themselves backed into a corner. The cost of living has skyrocketed, eroding the purchasing power of their wages. Many feel that demanding higher wages is their only remedy to keep pace with the escalating costs.

This sense of desperation is a clear indication of the government's failure in handling labour relations effectively. The policies enacted have not only failed to alleviate the pressures on Canadian workers but have actively made their lives harder, fuelling discontent and unrest in the workforce.

This situation calls for urgent attention and a re-evaluation of the government's approach to the inflationary policies that make life more unaffordable. It is crucial that we address the root causes of these issues rather than merely applying temporary fixes. The government must take responsibility for the current state of labour relations in Canada and work toward sustainable solutions that truly support and uplift the working class.

In continuing to address the current state of affairs under the NDP-Liberal government, it is important to highlight how these policies are intensifying the hardships faced by Canadian workers. A prime example is the carbon tax, which has resulted in a significant increase in costs across the board. This tax, far from being a simple environmental measure, has had a domino effect, affecting everything from transportation to the cost of basic needs. The burden of these increased expenses is disproportionately put on the working class, who find their paycheques stretched thinner every day.

Moreover, the housing crisis under the NDP-Liberal government has reached a critical point. Housing costs have not just risen; they have doubled. The situation is made worse by mortgage payments, which are now 150% higher than they were when Harper was prime minister. This financial strain is pushing Canadian families to the brink, with over 50% living within $200 of insolvency.

The reality is that the Liberals, now hand in hand with the NDP, have long abandoned the workers they claim to represent. Their policies, rather than offering relief, have contributed to the reality where everyday Canadians struggle to afford the basic costs of living. This abandonment is not just a failure of economic policy but a betrayal of the trust that workers place in their government to safeguard their interests and well-being.

The implications of these policies are far-reaching and deeply concerning. They paint a picture of a government disconnected from the realities faced by its citizens, especially the working class.

The recent revelation concerning the Stellantis battery plant is a striking example of the government's mismanagement and lack of transparency. It has come to light that 1,600 foreign replacement workers will be employed at the facility, a project funded by Canadian taxpayers to the tune of $15 billion. Even yesterday, we learned that up to 900 foreign replacement workers will help build the NextStar battery plant in Windsor. The fundamental question is why these jobs, created with Canadian money, are not being offered to Canadian workers.

This situation is unacceptable. It is a glaring injustice that Canadian taxpayers are financing projects that fail to prioritize their employment. The Prime Minister's office has been silent on the details of the massive corporate subsidies granted to electric vehicle battery plants. The recent revelations by the Parliamentary Budget Officer have only intensified concerns, indicating that the actual costs and implications are far more substantial than initially presented by the Prime Minister.

Moreover, Canadian workers and taxpayers deserve full transparency. Is the Prime Minister planning to use taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers at other facilities, such as the Volkswagen and Northvolt plants? This lack of clarity should be especially concerning for my Quebec colleagues, who might see jobs in their region being outsourced to foreign workers, potentially at the Northvolt plant located in the Bloc leader’s own riding.

If the Prime Minister truly cared about Canadian workers, as the bill suggests, he would disclose the contracts signed with Stellantis, Volkswagen and Northvolt. Canadians have a right to know the financial obligations they are under and the specific job provisions guaranteed for Canadian workers. The Prime Minister should have already ensured that Canadian tax dollars would be funding jobs for Canadian workers, not the employment of foreign workers.

Common-sense Conservatives are committed to ensuring that Canadian tax dollars are utilized justly and that the jobs they help create are indeed available for Canadians. The current situation is a stark reminder of the need for responsible governance that would place Canadian interests and workers at the forefront. We will continue to demand transparency and accountability from the government to ensure that Canadian workers are not sidelined in their own country.

Bill C-58 looks at dealing with the worsening labour relations across Canada, but the real issue stems from the NDP-Liberal government, which has made life unaffordable for the average Canadian worker. The reality faced by Canadian workers today is one of escalating costs, reduced purchasing power and missed employment opportunities, despite significant taxpayer investments. The introduction of foreign replacement workers in key taxpayer-funded projects such as the Stellantis battery plant symbolizes the government's disconnect from the needs and rights of Canadian labour.

The Conservative Party stands firmly with Canadian workers. We advocate for transparency, accountability and, above all, ensuring that Canadians are first in line for jobs created with their hard-earned tax dollars. It is time for the government to stop neglecting these vital principles. Canadian workers deserve a government that champions their cause, protects their interests and utilizes taxpayer funds to actually benefit Canadians. That is the commitment of the Conservative Party, and we will relentlessly pursue this goal in the interests of all Canadians.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the anti-scab legislation. When one looks at page 22 of the Liberal Party platform from the last federal election, one will find a commitment that the Liberal Party made, under its current leadership, toward bringing forward anti-scab legislation. This is a fulfilment of that commitment.

It is really encouraging to have before us legislation that would have a very positive impact on our labour movement across the country, from coast to coast to coast. In fact, I hope that other provincial jurisdictions will look at what the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have had in place for a number of years and, now, what the federal government is proposing within this bill to bring forward anti-scab legislation, and do likewise.

My daughter, who is the MLA for the Tyndall Park riding, through a throne speech, encouraged the provincial New Democratic Party in Manitoba to bring forward anti-scab legislation. Hopefully, my home province of Manitoba will in fact be the third province to bring it in.

I approach this legislation based on a number of factors. As a member of Parliament of Winnipeg's north end and a north-end MLA for almost 20 years, I have always looked at the issue of labour as important. In fact, one thing I would like to talk about is the general strike of 1919 in Winnipeg, which was a very historic strike for Canada as a nation. It lasted for six weeks, from mid-May to virtually the end of June, and I have had the opportunity to raise the 1919 general strike on several occasions.

I would like to highlight a couple of those. Back in 2019, I attempted to get recognition of that particular strike on the floor of the House. The first thing I will quote is that request. Before I do that, I want to emphasize that the boiling point of the 1919 strike was in good part over replacement workers. Today, we are debating anti-scab legislation, which is to prevent replacement workers, and this was a theme of the 1919 general strike in the city of Winnipeg.

I am going to go to May 7, 2019, where I stood in the House from this very seat and asked the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, but first let me just recognize and appreciate the support from the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

There has been discussion among the parties and, if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House of Commons recognize the historical significance of the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, in particular on workers rights, human rights and social advocacy for over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately, we did not get unanimous consent in order to have that recognition, but I still thought it was an important issue to raise.

May 15 is a significant day; for all intents and purposes, it is when the general strike of 1919 started. On May 15, again, I stood in the House at this very same spot and said the following:

Mr. Speaker, it was a general strike. On May 15, 1919, the call was made for all workers to put down their tools at 11 a.m. The first to strike were the female telephone workers, who failed to show up for their 7 a.m. shift.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Winnipeg strike. I want to acknowledge the importance of the labour movement in Canada. Unions matter. Unions represent people, people who work hard, support their families and contribute to their communities and our economy.

Today I thank those pioneers. The labour movement has been essential to promoting fairness and inclusion in our economy. Unions fight for the middle class and have been the driving force behind the exceptional progress made on behalf of women, LGBTQ workers, indigenous workers and workers with disabilities.

When we were elected, we committed to being a real partner with labour. We stand by that commitment, and we will keep working on behalf of the workers and Canada's middle class.

I said that back in 2019; I want to reinforce just how important it is. I often talk about the middle class on the floor of the House. It is something that the Prime Minister talked about even before he became the Prime Minister of Canada: supporting Canada's middle class.

One of the first actions we took was to repeal labour legislation of the Conservative Party, through private members. That was the member, and my colleague and friend, for the Kildonan riding, the minister of labour under the government at the time.

We have worked very closely with labour to ultimately be able to materialize a substantial piece of legislation. I appreciate the fact that the NDP and the Bloc party are going to be supporting this legislation. I would love to see the Conservative Party realize that the economy works better when one has harmony within the labour force.

There is nothing wrong with supporting anti-scab legislation. It is in everybody's best interest. I would ask my Conservative colleagues across the way to recognize that fact and support the legislation. It would send a very powerful message to everyone if, in fact, we could see that take place.

One does not need to say that this is an area that has never been explored before. As I said, the Province of British Columbia has had it for many years; the Province of Quebec has had it for many more, for decades.

I believe that the numbers and the stats clearly demonstrate that, in the end, we have seen more harmony in terms of labour relations in those provinces. This is a direct result of having anti-scab legislation, or at the very least, an indirect result.

I do not say that lightly, because it has been attempted before. I will go back to my home province of Manitoba. Back in 1988, when I was first elected, there was a big labour issue before the chamber. It was based on what they called final offer selection. This was, in essence, a compromise. The premier, Howard Pawley, had made a commitment years prior to the union movement to bring in anti-scab legislation. Well, he did not do so; instead, he brought in final offer selection as a compromise.

The final offer selection, in essence, said that the employer and employee would give their very best offer. The arbitrator would then have to choose one of the two; they could not mix it up in any way. That legislation had a sunset clause on it. That was the closest Manitoba ever came to having anti-scab legislation; it was that compromise.

I remember the debates quite well, because we would be going until two o'clock in the morning in standing committees. I remember the presentations by, in particular, labour movements and the different types of businesses that were coming before the Manitoba legislature.

It was a very heated discussion that took place. However, people lost sight of the bargaining table and the issue of collective bargaining.

There is not a level playing field when an employer is allowed to bring in replacement workers. That became very apparent in those discussions. At the time, we were the official opposition, and we felt we had to fight to keep final offer selection in place in the province of Manitoba, because we knew there was no way we were going to be able to get anti-scab legislation. If we could not get that, then we would stick with Howard Pawley's compromise of final offer selection. Unfortunately, we still lost that because of a lot of political manipulation.

I suspect that the Hansard of the Manitoba legislature back then would show that I was a very strong advocate, because I believe in, as much as possible, striving for labour harmony and supporting the collective bargaining system. This is why it goes as far back as 1988, and members will find that, with respect to labour issues, I often stand in the chamber, and often on behalf of many of my Liberal caucus colleagues. In fact, today, on behalf of all of my Liberal caucus colleagues, I am talking about how important it is to see the legislation before us pass, because we do not know what is on the horizon. Many, including myself, would like to think that we are going to be on this side for the next 10 years, but Canadians are going to have to make that decision. For now, we have an opportunity to do something very positive for the labour force and for business by getting behind the legislation. It is one of the ways in which we can actually support Canada's middle class.

If we go back to the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg, it was the grouping of the middle class that was feeling stepped on and that felt compelled to get engaged in the strike. Interestingly, what brought the strike to what I would suggest was an improper conclusion was when a trolley car that was being used for replacement workers came across from what used to be the old city hall, downtown on Main Street, where there were protests taking place for some of the union leaders who had actually been arrested. Strikers were there, and the trolley car was brought forward, which incited the workers. This incitement led to the trolley car's being turned over. The windows were smashed, and ultimately it was set on fire. People died as a result, not because of being burned but because of the actions that followed immediately after that.

There is a lot to be learned from history, and the Winnipeg General Strike had a profoundly positive impact on the labour movement in Canada. Many of the social programs we have today can be attributed to a lot of the strong labour personalities, and they came from different parties. It does not have to be made a political issue. Each and every one of us can be an advocate. Supporting the labour movement is supporting Canada's middle class and it is supporting our business community. If we learn from the past, we can recognize the value and importance of the bargaining table and of taking actions that would support the collective bargaining process. All one needs to do is look at the provinces of B.C. and Quebec. I truly believe it would provide, directly and indirectly, more labour harmony for Canada as a whole.

The federal legislation would not apply for a majority. The majority would be found within the provincial jurisdictions. I hope the federal legislation would embolden provincial legislatures. That is why I highlight the Province of Manitoba. I think it is in a good position to be able to advance legislation of this nature, because final offer selection died long ago, 30 years or more ago. Therefore, I am hoping the provinces will look at it and take tangible steps to make it happen. It takes away from bargaining, and anything that takes away from the bargaining table is a bad thing. It prolongs disputes. The costs to our economy are enormous. At the end of the day, having a system in place that encourages labour's bargaining with employers is a positive thing.

There are many mechanisms within the legislation itself that the Minister of Labour made reference to, and I would like to highlight a couple of them. Employers would be banned from hiring replacement workers during a strike or a lockout. That would mean, for example, that no new contractors or members of a bargaining unit could cross the picket line. Employers would be able to use replacement workers only to prevent threats to life, health and safety, or destruction or serious damage to property or the environment. If a union believes its employer is in violation of the ban, it would be able report it to the CIRB for an investigation. There would be a substantial penalty of $100,000 per day in certain situations. There would also be a maintenance of activities agreement, which is how employers and unions would agree on what work will continue during a strike or a lockout. It is a truce in the midst of a dispute.

There are a number of clauses within the legislation to reinforce its strength, so hopefully all members will get behind Bill C-58. I have listened to the New Democrats and members of the Bloc, who have some concerns. Let us get the bill to committee stage and see whether there are some amendments that could be brought forward. The government has demonstrated in the past that it is always open to the good ideas of individuals.

The Conservative leader often likes to talk about how he is there to represent union workers. If he is genuine in his comments, then I would hope the Conservative Party would join the Bloc; the NDP; the Greens, I expect; and the Liberals in voting in favour of the legislation. Unanimously supporting the legislation would send a powerful, positive message to all, in particular the labour movement. That would be my appeal to my colleagues across the way. Hopefully, they will respond to the appeal in a positive fashion and will think of the 1919 general strike and how it could impact some of the thinking on the whole process as we debate the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-58 as a substantial piece of legislation that will make a wonderful difference for the labour movement, but not only the labour movement. I think we get lost in this in the sense that it is in the best interests of all, whether for labour or employers. I genuinely believe that. It is something I have been advocating for for many years.

My question for my colleague is in regard to the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. They have had this, in particular Quebec for many years now. Could he again reinforce the benefits that those two provinces have received by having back-to-work legislation? What are his thoughts in regard to why it is important that other provincial jurisdictions follow suit now that we have two provinces and the national government moving forward on anti-scab legislation?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the speech I started the day before yesterday to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-58. For the first time, the federal government is proposing anti-scab legislation for all workers governed by the Canada Labour Code, so, workers under federal jurisdiction, who represent 10% of the country's labour force.

This is a very important debate. This bill is important because it is historic. For generations, labour activists who support workers' rights have been fighting to have the government uphold workers' fundamental right to strike, to ensure that during a labour dispute employers can no longer use replacement workers, to use the polite term, or scabs, to put it bluntly.

This is a big day. We need to emphasize the importance of the step that is being taken today. We will continue to exert pressure so that this bill is improved in committee and passed. Obviously, some aspects of the bill need to be improved, but the fact that the government has introduced such a bill for the first time in history is a good sign.

Over the years, the NDP has introduced a number of anti-scab bills, nine of them, I think, in the past 10 or 12 years. I introduced a bill last year to give the Liberal government a helping hand and point it in the right direction. We managed to hold discussions and make some progress. Today, we have something interesting to look at.

It could make a huge difference for tens of thousands of people. We wish this legislation had come along sooner, because people are suffering now without it. We want to fix the problem so that painful situations like these never happen again.

I get pretty disheartened when organizations like the Conseil du patronat du Québec, Quebec's council of employers, tell us that this bill is not relevant or necessary right now. There are still people on picket lines or locked out who see replacement workers take their place during a labour dispute. That was the case until very recently. It has psychological consequences for workers and it impacts the balance of power between management and unions. It also has very serious and significant consequences for families going through extremely tense times.

The Conseil du patronat du Québec says this is not relevant or timely, but that is simply not the case. Just think about Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy, which was in a labour dispute two years ago, if memory serves me correctly. The workers were replaced by scabs. A small team of 12 or 14 employees was replaced. It took longer and it was more difficult to resolve the problem because replacement workers were brought in.

Let us also not forget the longshore workers at the Port of Québec, who have been locked out for 14 months now. They were kicked out by their own employer, who refused to negotiate in good faith. Because of the lack of legislative measures in the Canada Labour Code, employers can hire replacement workers or scabs. This means that, for the past 14 months, 81 longshore workers have seen people take their place every day on the job site, even though those folks do not have the necessary skills, cause a bunch of accidents and destroy equipment.

It upsets the balance of power and undermines the possibility of reaching a reasonable settlement that works for both parties when replacement workers are given the job and perform the tasks of workers who are out on strike or, in the case of the Quebec longshore workers, are locked out. It is even worse in this case, because this was not their choice. Workers just want decent working conditions. In this case, it is not even about money. It is more about work-life balance and having more humane working hours.

This is happening now. We are not talking about 50 years ago, we are not talking about Murdochville, we are not talking about past battles. We are talking about what is happening right now, today. The situation with the longshore workers at the Port de Québec is tough. It is not the only one and may not be the last, unfortunately.

Now there is a dispute at Videotron, in Gatineau. Again, this is a federally regulated sector. We talked about sports. We could also talk about airports or the rail sector. Here we are talking about telecommunications, another federally regulated sector. It is possible that replacement workers are taking the jobs of the unionized workers in Videotron's west sector, in Gatineau. This would make it much harder to reach a settlement, to get a good contract for the employees.

I want to come back to the example of Videotron because it is an interesting one. Videotron is owned by Pierre Karl Péladeau, who is proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the legislative advances made by his province. Quebec was the first province to implement anti-scab legislation in 1977. British Columbia followed suit several years later. If Pierre Karl Péladeau respects the spirit of the law in Quebec, then he should not use replacement workers in his own company. We will see what happens with Videotron in Gatineau, but I want to make it clear that when workers organize to collectively defend their rights and improve their working conditions, which is well within their rights to do, there has to be a balance of power. For years, that balance of power did not exist. For example, unions were prohibited in Canada until 1872. They were illegal.

It was a crime to collectively organize in order to defend a group's rights and try to improve pay or work organization. It really is thanks to the work of generations of union activists that we have been able to achieve better working conditions. In fact, if we look closely, we realize that before unions emerged and took action, spearheading major battles, there really was no middle class. There were extremely rich owners and extremely poor workers. The workers merely survived, trying to work hard and provide for their children so that these children could take their place in the factory and continue to ensure profits and added value for the owners of the means of production.

It took the courage and action of generations of workers, men and women, who stood up and decided that they had to fight together to lift themselves out of misery and poverty, to get good paycheques, good working conditions and benefits. In fact, the union movement created the middle class. There was no middle class before. It did not exist. In the 19th century there was no middle class. People were either very rich or very poor. Workers struggled to survive under horrific health and safety conditions.

The goal was to establish a balance of power at the bargaining table and negotiate with management, with the employer, to tell them that workers wanted their share of the profits and to live with dignity. There would be no profits without all these workers doing their jobs in factories to produce the goods and services sold. This was how the middle class got its start and managed to rise above poverty and misery. Finally, middle class workers could buy a house, have a pension, look forward to retirement and get insurance and benefits.

That is how we were able to create a middle class in Quebec and Canada, as well as in the United States, of course, France and England.

The problem with not having anti-scab legislation is that the balance of power at the bargaining table is completely undermined. Going on strike essentially sends a message to the employer that production is being halted and that there will be an economic impact arising from this work stoppage, since the product can no longer be sold on the market. If production continues because replacement workers can be hired to keep doing the work, the balance of power at the bargaining table has just been destroyed. It is all well and good for the employer to say that employees can go on strike for as long as they like and that it is not the employer's problem, because, in any case, production and service will continue, the employer will continue to make money, revenue will come in, and there is no problem.

This destroys the workers' bargaining power and drags out the labour disputes. The employer has no incentive to reach an agreement with the union to provide good or acceptable working conditions to its workers. This also creates more tension, which can lead to violence. Imagine being a worker on the picket line every morning who sees someone go in to take their place, their salary and keep the business in operation. Frustration and anger run high. In the past we have seen violent acts and interpersonal conflicts that are totally understandable.

That is why, for hundreds of thousands of workers at the federal level, it is important to have this legislation that will simply provide balance at the bargaining table. Such legislation has existed in Quebec since 1977 in every sector in Quebec, of which there are very many. We are talking about 90% of the labour force. This also exists in British Columbia and the sky has not fallen. Economic development has carried on. In fact, the labour disputes have been fewer, shorter and less violent. That is good for everyone.

Some members of the House use the term “common sense” a lot. I think that anti-scab legislation is just common sense. We are not trying to dictate what workers' wages, working conditions or contracts will look like. We just want to give workers a chance to exercise their constitutional rights and to be in a position where they can use their balance of power, have a say at the bargaining table and negotiate a good employment contract.

I began working as a union representative for the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 2002. Two weeks later, the labour dispute at Videotron began. What I saw 20 years ago is the impact of the employer being able to use replacement workers, or scabs, and just how much that served to prolong the dispute. I was happy to be working with that union, but it was a long, hard battle. In the end, the union was successful. The technicians stayed in the union. However, it is important to avoid this type of situation in the future, like the situations at the Port of Québec and Videotron in Gatineau right now. We must ensure that there is an equal balance of power. It is a matter of fairness. We are not trying to favour one side over the other. These are fundamental rights that must be defended.

I am extremely proud of the fact that the NDP leveraged its strength in Parliament to help workers. I was talking about balance of power at the bargaining table, but we used our balance of power in Parliament. From the very beginning of talks on the agreement we have with the minority Liberal government, the leader of the NDP made it clear that this was an essential condition. After years of struggle, we absolutely had to have anti-scab legislation at the federal level.

I think this is an extremely important step. This direct gain is attributable to the work of the NDP caucus, my NDP colleagues and the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South. He forced the Liberals to introduce anti-scab legislation even though the Liberals have always been against it. Every time we introduced anti-scab legislation, the Liberals voted against it. I think they have seen the light, but I also think they did not have much choice. We twisted their arm a bit and, in the end, thanks to the influence of the NDP caucus and all my colleagues, we are going to get it done.

However, some obstacles remain and some aspects of the bill require improvement. My colleagues and I look forward to sending the bill to committee for improvement. One rather major obstacle right now is the time it will take to implement the bill. A second reading, a review in committee and a third reading will take time. After that the Senate will also be doing its part.

The bill states that its implementation will take 18 months. This is a major irritant for the NDP. Eighteen months is far too long. We fail to understand why it would take that long for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to adjust to the new legislative measure. We think that it might take 12 months or maybe even six months. We will therefore be applying pressure in committee to shorten the implementation time provided for this bill in light of its importance and urgency to a number of sectors of our economy. It will open the door to good working conditions for the people we represent, make room for good employment contracts and good salaries, and improve the situation of just about everyone in the country.

I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.