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

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on a $66.7-million funding agreement that our government made with the City of Edmonton earlier this year to guarantee over 2,000 new and refurbished affordable housing units. That could not have been possible without the fantastic leadership of their amazing mayor, Amarjeet Sohi. Despite the fact that I have never heard the member stand up to talk about the importance of affordable, public housing in the House, we are moving forward with funding for the great City of Edmonton with their awesome mayor.

For the fifth or sixth time today, we have not heard whether or not the Conservatives are actually in favour of banning replacement workers, also known as “scab workers”. This legislation would advance labour rights and workers' rights to make sure that the best negotiations, which always happen at the table, can operate in a fair, open and transparent manner. Cut and dry, does the member agree that we should ban replacement workers in Canada?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, if that useless parliamentary secretary bothered to listen to my speech—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the hon. member that this is exactly the issue we are having with keeping the House running smoothly. When parliamentarians use adjectives that are not proper to use when describing individuals, it creates havoc in the House.

I would remind members to please be respectful in the House when they are speaking of other parliamentarians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will at least acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment had at least some integrity when he stood up in the House and acknowledged that his government had betrayed Ukrainian farmers.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not hearing the answer I was hoping I would hear in the member's response to my colleague's question. Is the member saying that he feels that replacement workers are a benefit to workers?

I am not understanding what his stance is, exactly, on this bill, or if he and his Conservative colleagues will be voting in favour of this bill to ensure that protections are in place to support workers, have fair working conditions and have a fair wage.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about this bill, particularly from the standpoint that it would prolong and increase the number of strikes. Very rarely are there winners when there are extended strikes. Workers lose out on paycheques. There is lost productivity. There is disruption to supply chains, and there is a loss of profit for employers, which often negatively impacts workers' wages.

There are problems, potentially, with this bill. We want a bill that gets it right for employers and businesses and strikes the appropriate balance. I am not sure this legislation does that.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech my colleague from Alberta gave. I would ask him to reflect on how it seems like the NDP has highlighted a number of challenges it sees with this bill, although it plans to support it. We recently saw media reports that, if the Liberals do not get pharmacare done this year, it is willing to amend their confidence and supply coalition agreement.

I wonder if my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton would have any reflections on whether the NDP has any integrity left in standing up for the principles that it supposedly ran on in the last election. It certainly seems to me as though NDP members are nothing more than sellouts.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would concur with the conclusion drawn by my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot.

We have this costly coalition, which is making life less affordable for everyday Canadians, including Canadian workers. We have an NDP that has voted against the interests of everyday Canadians multiple times when it supported the Liberals' carbon tax increases. The NDP continues to prop up this costly government.

The NDP will have to answer at the next election for why it is that it has sold out and propped up this corrupt Prime Minister.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind the member to be very careful with the words he uses to describe members in the House. It does not do well for the debates we are trying to have in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the ruling that came from the Chair was very clear on the language that can be used and should not be used in the House.

For any member to use the term “corrupt Prime Minister”, or “corrupt” in reference to anybody in here, violates the rules the Chair has put forward in the House. I would suggest that the member needs to either retract the comment or be properly censured until he does.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have members who seem to be weighing in before I even recognize them.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe is rising on the same point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I would also advocate that, concerning the language used by parliamentarians in the House, hon. members need to remember the ruling that came forward from the Chair earlier.

I know that I myself have a lot of adjectives in my head that I would like to use to describe some of the folks here, but I do not use them. I am very specific about it. I try to maintain decorum, and I would hope that they would do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I know one of the issues for some of my colleagues on this, and in light of the discussion that was had after question period today, is that, when it comes to the conduct and speech of members, there needs to be an equal application of the rules across party lines.

The accusations the government House leader made during question period certainly call into question whether or not those rules are being fairly applied. Therefore, when it comes to decorum in the House, it is absolutely incumbent upon all members. Certainly for my part, I will always be happy to defend the things I say and endeavour to speak the truth.