Bill C-58

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

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

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, committee members. We will begin.

The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum. Everybody is appearing in the committee room, so we did not require any sound testing.

I will remind you before we begin about the steps that have been advised that committee members must take to avoid sound issues for the translators. Please keep your earpiece in the allotted spot when you're not using it. If you're not going to use it at all, it is best to keep it unplugged.

As you know, the room layouts have been adjusted to give more spacing to avoid any possible sound issues. Again, keep your earpiece on the allotted location.

Today's meeting is taking place pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 22, 2024. The committee is beginning its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations.

Before I introduce departmental officials, I would advise members that you have the choice to speak in the official language of your choice. If translation services are interrupted, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while they are being clarified.

Appearing in the committee room today, from the Department of Employment and Social Development, are Zia Proulx, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workforce; Katherine Chan, senior policy analyst, workplace and labour relations policy division; and Ryan Cowling, manager, workplace and labour relations policy division. They are here to address any questions the committee members may have related to the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

With that, again, thank you, members.

I apologize; somebody forgot to order breakfast, or we didn't pay for the last one and we're not getting any more. It will be corrected. Ms. Gray has agreed to pay for it if we can't find the funds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being here. I would have liked to hear your opening remarks, but you can send it to us in writing.

During the study of Bill C‑58, we had the pleasure of hearing from representatives of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. They told us about their staff. I found that quite troubling, personally. I found that the team was quite weak, not in terms of quality, but in terms of the number of employees.

Have you set aside the necessary resources to make Bill C‑58, which is ambitious and which we hope to be able to improve and pass, enforceable?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues.

Minister, thank you for coming.

I will say that it's shocking but great to see this newfound support for Canadian unions and workers from the Conservative Party. It's shocking, but I'm glad to see it.

I want to talk to you, Minister, about Bill C-58. As you know, we just studied Bill C-58. We did hear a lot of great testimony from witnesses that I think really cut through the smoke, if you will, and brought clarity to a lot of myths, particularly the misconception that unions and workers want to strike, that it's what they want to do and that this legislation would potentially impact that.

We had Sean Strickland in from Canada's Building Trades Unions. He said that anybody who suggests that unions want to strike, that it's what they want to do and that they can't wait to get on the picket line, is “not in touch”. They're not in touch with today's economy and labour realities.

We know that this legislation will actually bring people to the bargaining table. You've always said, through many strikes, that the best deals are done at the bargaining table. We know that these are the best deals that happen for workers. I'm wondering if you can expand just a bit on Bill C-58 and why it is so important, and then, in contrast, how right-to-work legislation, which seems to be favoured by the Leader of the Opposition, could be detrimental to workers.

Thanks, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Thank you everyone.

That will conclude the first hour of the committee's meeting this morning. It will also conclude the witness testimony on Bill C-58.

We'll suspend for a few moments and then go in camera for the business portion of this meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Carey, Madame Brazeau, Mr. Ghiz and Mr. Smith, for appearing this morning on this important piece of legislation.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe this is the last time we'll be meeting with witnesses for our study on Bill C-58.

In order to be historic and do what it's supposed to—prohibit the use of replacement workers—the bill actually has to come into force. It makes no sense that the bill won't come into force until 18 months after it receives royal assent. That doesn't even include how long it will take for it to receive royal assent. What a joke to tell unionized employees who work for Videotron, the Quebec City port and other such employers that, even though the bill was passed, it won't come into force for 18 months. If the government is serious about this legislation, it has to allocate all the resources required for implementation.

Workers' right to strike, a fundamental right protected by the charters, is at stake. However, it will be a long time before all these legislative improvements come into force, improvements that will lead to disputes truly being resolved. As the only explanation, the minister stated clearly that the time frame had been recommended by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We find that totally unacceptable.

What's more, of course strikes cause disruptions, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. It's important to respect the parties to the dispute. When employers use replacement workers, as Videotron has, they aren't respecting the issues. During a lockout, the employer can organize, contract out the work and move call centres outside the country. That is the reality. On top of that, good jobs are lost.

Mr. Ghiz, we are well aware of how important the telecommunications sector is, as are other sectors that deliver essential services. However, does that justify telling workers that it doesn't matter if they want to exercise their right to strike because they can be replaced anyways?

[Dave Carey]

We haven't, not to that degree. I can say that the agriculture sector does have provisions. The longshoremen are prohibited from striking because over the years it was used as leverage, and then Minister MacAulay, in labour, in 1998 amended that. Again, I think the agriculture sector's view is similar to the telecoms' view, which is not about replacing workers. It's about allowing current staff within, say, the railways, to continue to keep the lights on.

I think our view on Bill C-58 is that you do need to take a sector-by-sector approach when allocating through these sorts of blanket bills. We don't have a position on collective bargaining. We respect the unions' abilities to do things. However, we are seeing Canada's reputation challenged globally, with the current legislative framework we have, about our ability to get agriculture products to market.

Agriculture is one in nine jobs, 7% of GDP and $99 billion in exports last year alone. I guess our concern is that BillC-58 would more instability with Bill , but again, our comments would be within the agriculture sector and also within the abilities of the railways, the grain companies and the ports to use current staff, whether they're management or non-unionized, to keep the lights on. Replacement workers can't jump on a railcar and run the thing. They just can't. That's where major labour instability is. We are concerned about the trend of labour instability in our grain supply chains.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

We also heard from one of the witnesses, Charles Smith—I think last week—who is a professor out in Saskatchewan. He had a very compelling argument that traditionally in today's society, employers have always had a bit of an advantage over employees. He talked about how industry groups in general have shied away from bills like this and made the argument that a bill like this could prolong strikes. He presented some evidence in regard to Quebec and B.C. having this type of legislation in place and made the argument and presented it to us that there would actually be fewer strikes when legislation like Bill C-58 is put in place.

Mr. Carey, has your industry group done any research to support the claim that a bill like Bill C-58 could potentially cause more disruption, versus the claim Mr. Smith has made, which is that it actually reduces disruption by creating “industrial peace”, as he referred to it, and creating a better balance between employers and employees?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today as we study this important and historic bill.

I have a comment to start. Mr. Ghiz, your presentation was rather bold, if not provocative. You said that Bill C-58 sought to address a problem that did not exist. I take issue with that.

The dockworkers at the Quebec City port have been locked out for the past 18 months, and every day, they see people taking their jobs and pay. Situations like that aren't limited to ports. They also happen in telecommunications. Sitting behind you, Mr. Ghiz, are four Videotron employees who have been locked out for nearly six months in Gatineau, and replacement workers have been brought in to do their jobs. This is a real problem. In fact, I kindly encourage you to go up to them after the meeting, to talk to them about their situation and find out what the labour dispute is like for them. They have been out on the street for nearly six months.

Ms. Brazeau, you said you couldn't presume what Parliament would decide with respect to the bill. I agree, but since all parties in the House voted in favour of Bill C-58 at second reading, it will probably end up being passed, unless the tide turns and things change significantly.

Is the Canada Industrial Relations Board getting ready for the bill's potential passage?

[Ginette Brazeau]

The board looks at complaints and requests submitted to us. If we receive a request regarding replacement workers, we have fairly broad investigative powers. We have officers in the regions to whom we can delegate the authority to gather information or evidence in the field, in the workplace, that can then be presented to the board and that the parties can rely on to make their views known.

So our powers already include an investigative component. However, if Bill C‑58 passes, we're thinking about how we could use those powers more broadly or differently compared to what we're doing now.

I should point out that we do this kind of investigation in response to a complaint. So there has to be a complaint at the outset.

However, if you're referring to the department's investigative powers, I must say that we already have a model for health, safety and labour standards whereby the department conducts an investigation and the files on which an appeal is based are then forwarded to the board.

I think that would be an additional step in the process.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Brazeau, I will echo the others and say that the Canada Industrial Relations Board plays a major role in the balance of power and labour relations in Canada. Thank you for your testimony.

I'm surprised to learn that you deal with cases that fall under all parts of the Canada Labour Code. In Quebec, occupational health and safety issues are handled by a separate commission. I think it would be nice to see that at the federal level as well. I've already said that the Canada Labour Code needs some love and that it should be strengthened. Treating health and safety separately would be one improvement to make, although that's not proposed in Bill C‑58.

This bill is desired and desirable. All the labour organizations that have appeared before our committee so far have reiterated the fact that, to be able to fully implement it, additional resources are needed on the board. That's a role for government. I hope that the government will walk the talk and that, because we want to pass a robust bill to protect the balance of power and give full meaning to the right to strike, the government will be able to allocate the necessary resources to ensure that the bill does that.

I will come back to delays, because it's an important issue, but first I'd like to point out that many witnesses have also told us that there should be an investigative mechanism similar to the one provided for in the Quebec Labour Code that allows workers to enter the workplace to ensure that replacement workers are not being used. It must be said that unions cannot enter the workplace to see whether an offence has been committed or not.

Is that a desirable avenue, in your opinion?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I've heard from both the union side and the employer side that you're very well respected.

What advice would you give to employers and unions to get ready for Bill C-58?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes, in order to.... How is it now, I suppose, and how would Bill C-58 change those timelines, potentially?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

There's certainly no additional funding that's being put forward to deal with the potential increase of cases from C-58. You haven't heard anything about that, have you?

[Ginette Brazeau]

It's very difficult to give an estimate of the actual workload that will result from Bill C-58.

Maybe I can point to the chart for this. If you look at chart 3, which considers the number of matters related to maintenance of activities that are currently dealt with by the board, you will see that in recent years, we've had between 25 and 30 cases related to maintenance of activities. We deal with those, chart number 2, on average in 150 days, 130 days.

You can see that in 2023 and 2024, 14 of those cases were withdrawn. What happens is that because of the current provision in the code related to the maintenance of activities and the timelines that apply, they file with us. Then they ask us to hold the matter in abeyance, because they want to focus on collective bargaining. We don't deal with those matters. The parties reach an agreement, and then they withdraw this application on maintenance of activities, so although we have 26 applications, we don't deal with half of them. Now, as I read the legislation, there will be a lot more pressure for us to deal with these applications.

[Robert Ghiz, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Telecommunications Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss Bill C-58.

When Bill C-58 was introduced, we expressed our concern that the bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist and that for the reasons given to the committee by FETCO last week, it should not become law.

While our position in this regard has not changed, if Parliament decides to pass the bill, it must first be amended to address an issue that should concern all Canadians, including members of this committee.

Canadians rely on telecommunication services every day, and the security and reliability of networks have never been more important. To quote the Government of Canada:

Not only do [telecommunication services] support a wide range of economic and social activities, but they support other critical infrastructure sectors and government services, and are crucial for emergency services and public safety. They are fundamental to the safety, prosperity, and well-being of Canadians.

The same is true for broadcasting and television services, which play a key role in ensuring public safety in Canada.

These services are essential for Canadians. In the event of a power outage caused by a natural disaster, vandalism or another factor, consumers expect their utility and its team to work tirelessly to restore those services. That's exactly what's happening today.

The prohibition on the use of replacement workers in Bill C-58 would significantly weaken service providers' capacity to restore services and protect their networks from disruption during a strike or lockout.

While some argue that requiring employers and the bargaining unit to establish a maintenance of activities agreement before a strike or lockout will mitigate the negative effects of the prohibition on replacement workers, this viewpoint is flawed.

While section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code requires the parties to continue the supply of services to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has previously ruled that section 87.4 does not apply to a potential interruption of telecommunications services during a strike or lockout. As well, the limited exemptions to the prohibition on replacement workers under the proposed amendments to section 94 of the code are not sufficient to ensure the continuity of telecommunications and broadcasting services during a strike or lockout.

Mr. Chair, I know you are intimately familiar with the devastation that hurricane Fiona caused in Prince Edward Island and surrounding provinces. Imagine if telecom workers had been on strike when the storm hit our province. Under Bill C-58, the affected telecom providers could not use striking workers with the necessary experience and skill to protect and restore services or hire temporary replacement workers or contractors. This would have been unacceptable to Atlantic Canadians and should be unacceptable to Parliament.

Experts predict that 2024 could be one of the most active Atlantic hurricane seasons on record. Scientists say that they are bracing for what could be another year of devastating wildfires across Canada, and cybersecurity threats, as we know, are on the rise. Compromising our telecommunications and broadcasting systems' reliability, resilience and security in the context of a strike or lockout undermines the extensive and detailed steps taken by the government under its telecommunications reliability agenda. It also runs counter to Canadians' expectations that these critical services will be there for them when they need them most.

While we respect the right to strike, there must be a balance between workers' rights and the public good. We ask the committee to recommend to Parliament that Bill C-58 be amended to ensure that during a strike or lockout, service providers, their employees and the bargaining units must continue providing services necessary to repair and restore telecommunications broadcasting services and to perform critical maintenance work.

In fact, we know from a recent Nanos poll that 95% of Canadians say that it is important that telecommunications services remain available without disruption and that eight in 10 Canadians think that telecommunications companies and their employees should be required to continue to provide the services needed to prevent and repair disruptions even when there is a strike or lockout.

The amendment would be like one made by Parliament to ensure that labour disputes in the longshoring industry do not interrupt the movement of grain vessels.

We've provided the committee with wording for the suggested amendment and a couple of other amendments that we ask the committee to please consider.

We would be happy to discuss these during the remainder of the meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.