The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

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

This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.

Sponsor

Seamus O'Regan  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

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

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

Elsewhere

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

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-58s:

C-58 (2017) Law An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
C-58 (2015) Support for Veterans and Their Families Act
C-58 (2013) Law Appropriation Act No. 5, 2012-13
C-58 (2010) Law Appropriation Act No. 4, 2010-11

Votes

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

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-58 aims to amend the Canada Labour Code and related regulations. The key provisions of the bill include prohibiting the use of replacement workers during strikes or lockouts in federally regulated workplaces, with certain exceptions for health and safety, and establishing a process for maintaining essential services during labour disputes. The bill also sets timelines for reaching agreements on maintained activities and allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene if agreements cannot be reached.

Liberal

  • Banning replacement workers: Bill C-58 will prohibit the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, with violators facing a fine of $100,000 per day. The Liberal Party argues that replacement workers undermine the collective bargaining process and prolong disputes.
  • Tripartite collaboration: The legislation is the result of employers, workers, and the government working together to address issues in Canadian labor relations. Consultations, though tense, allowed parties to reach agreements and improve the maintenance of activities process.
  • Maintenance of activities: The bill sets clear timelines for employers and unions to determine what work needs to continue during a strike or lockout, ensuring the health and safety of Canadians and preventing damage to property and the environment. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Canada Industrial Relations Board will make a determination within 90 days.
  • Supports collective bargaining: The Liberal speakers argued that by banning replacement workers, Bill C-58 will strengthen collective bargaining. They asserted that it will level the playing field between workers and employers, and lead to more stability and certainty for businesses, unions, and the public.

Conservative

  • Hypocrisy on replacement workers: Conservatives argue the bill is hypocritical because it does not apply to the federal public service and because the government is subsidizing foreign replacement workers at projects like the Stellantis battery plant while simultaneously restricting their use in federally regulated private sector industries.
  • Balance needed: Conservatives emphasize the need to balance workers' rights with a healthy business environment. They feel the Liberal government's policies have led to increased labor unrest and an unaffordable cost of living for workers.
  • Transparency concerns: Conservatives are demanding transparency regarding contracts for projects like the Stellantis and Northvolt plants, particularly concerning the use of foreign replacement workers and guarantees for Canadian jobs. They want to ensure Canadian tax dollars benefit Canadian workers.
  • Impact on the economy: Conservatives fear that the legislation could drive business investment away from Canada, potentially leading to fewer jobs. They also raise concerns about the potential for disruptions to critical supply chains and the overall Canadian economy.

NDP

  • Strong support for Bill C-58: The NDP strongly supports Bill C-58, anti-scab legislation for all workers governed by the Canada Labour Code. The party views this bill as a historic step towards upholding workers' fundamental right to strike and ensuring a fair balance of power during labor disputes.
  • NDP's long-time advocacy: The NDP has consistently championed anti-scab legislation, introducing multiple bills over the years, and views the current bill as a result of their efforts. They emphasize that this legislation is essential for protecting workers from exploitation and ensuring fair negotiations with employers.
  • Addresses power imbalance: The NDP argues that anti-scab legislation is necessary to address the power imbalance between employers and workers during labor disputes. They believe that allowing employers to hire replacement workers undermines the right to strike and prolongs disputes, leading to tension and potential violence.
  • Implementation timeframe concerns: While supportive of the bill, the NDP expresses concern over the proposed 18-month implementation timeframe, deeming it unnecessarily long. They plan to push for a shorter implementation period in committee to ensure the legislation's benefits are realized sooner for workers across the country.

Bloc

  • Strong support for bill: The Bloc Québécois strongly supports Bill C-58, an anti-scab bill. Members have been requesting this bill for a long time and want it passed quickly to restore balance in labour disputes.
  • Correct flaws in bill: The Bloc will vote for the bill, but it has flaws that need to be corrected in committee. Concerns include loopholes allowing employers to hire replacement workers before a strike notice, the bill not being retroactive, employers transferring workers to other sites, and the 18-month delay for implementation.
  • Eliminate implementation delay: The Bloc Québécois finds the 18-month delay before the bill comes into force unacceptable. They will push to shorten this timeframe so the bill can be implemented sooner and provide immediate dignity to striking workers.
  • Address Quebec's leadership: Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977, and this bill aims to address the power imbalance in employer-union relationships and align federal regulations with Quebec's progressive stance. The Bloc has introduced numerous bills over the years to achieve this goal.

Green

  • Supports bill C-58: The Green Party supports Bill C-58, which bans the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. They advocate for amendments to remove loopholes and exemptions that undermine the bill's purpose.
  • Strengthen the bill: The Green Party is calling for amendments to remove the 18-month delay before the bill comes into force and to eliminate loopholes that allow the use of replacement workers. They believe that a stable system of collective bargaining is essential for economic security.
  • Correcting Conservative misinformation: The Green Party clarified that workers from South Korea at the Stellantis battery plant, brought in under trade agreements, are not replacement workers and are unrelated to Bill C-58. They emphasized the importance of accurately understanding the legislation's focus on protecting the rights of unionized workers during legal strikes or lockouts.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by wishing everyone a merry Christmas on these final strokes of the parliamentary calendar for this year.

I want to talk a little bit about the context of Bill C-58. I believe there is 100% agreement among all members, and probably among all Canadians, that we need more great-paying union jobs in this country. I want to talk about how we get there, how we make sure that there are more great-paying union jobs here in Canada.

The challenge right now is that, as a nation, we have a productivity crisis in our country, and productivity is what powers our economy. Let us imagine the economy of the country as a business itself. If, in fact, the business is producing things efficiently and effectively, then guess what? If there is a strong union in place, good wages should follow, and that is exactly what we want for the nation. Unfortunately, the factory that is our economy is not keeping up with other OECD countries.

Let us unpack productivity. What does “productivity” mean? In layman's terms it basically means how efficiently and effectively we are delivering goods and services. How efficiently and effectively is our economy running? The answer is that it is not great, unfortunately, because of a number of standards. Productivity in itself is basically a three-legged stool. One leg is technology; another is capital investment, and the other is workers. I will go through those legs one by one to make sure we understand what the challenges are and why, unfortunately, the government is just not meeting the challenges.

I will start with technology. It makes sense, and it has been true since the Roman Empire and even before it, that a society or an economy that has leading technology will have the ability to bring prosperity, or prosperity relative to the rest of the world, to its shores. Unfortunately, in Canada, we have a government that is stifling technology and innovation. For multiple years, going on almost a decade, in fact, we have been calling on the government for open banking legislation that was supposed to be here a year ago, and a year before that. Finally, in the fall economic statement, we got a promise for another promise to have open banking legislation. It was supposed to be here years and years ago. In the U.K., open banking has saved customers, depending on which academic or economist one approves of, between $1 billion and $10 billion. That is money we are leaving on the table every year because the government cannot get out of its own way.

We can look at legislation with respect to innovation. Around the world, there is a lot of innovation about how we nurture the small or medium-sized technology companies and make them into the behemoths that they are. Unfortunately, in Canada, we are struggling with that. We have innovations like a patent box, which is available to the government as a tool. We have special regulatory and tax breaks that we can give companies, not just to move factories onto our shores by giving multinationals billions and billions of dollars, but also by creating businesses here at home, and we are failing there when it comes to the technology aspect.

Another element of the technology world where we are letting people down is real-time rail. Most, if not all, G7 countries have real-time rail. People at home might ask me what the heck real-time rail is. Real-time rail is just having money travel instantly. A person may say that when they do an electronic funds transfer to their friend to pay half of the dinner bill, it seems to go immediately. However, in reality, while it seems to go immediately, what actually happens is that the financial institutions are fronting the money, and then the money comes back.

Our current money transfer payment system is really held together by duct tape and a dream. It will break down, mark my words, at some point if we do not have some legislative innovation to allow a real-time rail system, which most of the other G7 and OECD countries have. That is an issue because the flows of capital and the flows of transfer are incredibly important to an innovation economy.

We have some great start-ups and great fintechs across this country, but the government seems to be doing everything it can to stifle their development. There are tremendous opportunities. By the way, these are not partisan issues. It was, I believe, both in the Liberal policy items and in the Conservative policy items in the last election to have open banking, but we just need to deliver. That is the problem. Many times, my issue with the government is not so much ideology; it is just competency. These are things every other country seems to get done but that this country cannot.

Second, the other leg I talked about was capital investment. This is the money that powers the technology that powers the worker. We have decisions to make as a society as to how much money we put into the public sector, which is incredibly important, and how much money we put into the private sector, which I would argue is just as important, if not more so. The private sector is that economy; it is what is driving the money flow. If we do not have a vibrant private sector generating revenue and income for the rest of our economy, that means we will not have a vibrant public sector, because the taxes come from the private sector. They come from the small business owner who is working 20 hours out of a 24-hour day.

However, our current regulatory regime, as well as our taxation regime, is not fair to these individuals. In fact, even the government's approach to business is stifling growth. It is preventing winning from happening. I say this not for partisan reasons per se, but it does sort of illuminate where the government stands with respect to business. When it called small business owners tax cheats, that not only affects the bottom line; it also affects the way people think about business. It shows the way the government thinks about business, when in reality, without strong businesses, without entrepreneurs and without doers in our society, we will not have the revenue we need to fund our very important public sector programs.

The final leg I am going to talk about today is with respect to workers. Our workers are, I think, and in fact I know, the best in the world. We have so many intelligent, hard-working women and men across this great country who go to work every day, but what has happened to them over the last eight years is just not fair. I do not know how else to put it. Let us start by discussing what the government is doing directly, and then we can talk about what it is doing indirectly, to our workers. There is something called the marginal effective tax rate, which is how much one pays to the government for the next dollar. That involves both taxation and clawbacks. It is shocking to me that there are Canadians earning less than $50,000 who, on their next dollar earned, will be giving upwards of 70¢, 80¢ or even 90¢ back to a government. Can one imagine?

For those of us who have children, imagine saying to them that they are going to be given an allowance. They are to shovel the snow, which is no doubt coming, or rake the leaves, or whatever, and they will be given $10 an hour to do it. However, by the way, $9 an hour is going to be taken back. It is unbelievable the impact that taking away from workers would have.

In sum, we need to improve the productivity of our country through reductions in red tape and reductions in taxation so we can have the productivity we need to make sure there are great high-paying union jobs across this country.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:20 p.m.

Burnaby North—Seymour B.C.

Liberal

Terry Beech LiberalMinister of Citizens’ Services

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the holidays, I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone happy holidays and a merry Christmas, and to say that, upon reflection, I think it is important for all of us to realize that no matter what party we belong to in the House, we all represent Canadians and, at the end of the day, all play for the same team. I recently had a chance to meet the member opposite's son, who happens to share a birthday with my daughter. I know that the member wants to build a great country for my daughter, just as I want to build a great country for his son, which is something I think all members of the House can come together on.

We agree with a lot of the things and ideas he talked about. I, too, am excited by open banking. I am also excited by patent boxes. In fact, that is something I have worked on for some time. I often think there is a wonderful opportunity for the opposition in the House, not just to oppose but also to propose. I think good ideas can come from all sides of the House, so I congratulate the member opposite for a year of hard work and his relatively non-partisan speech. I will end my comments by agreeing with him on the last part of his statement, when he said, “Our workers...are the best in the world.”

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, we agree unanimously with respect to our workers' being the best in the world, but the rest of it may be on division.

I thank the member for his kind words. I did very much enjoy working with him on the finance committee.

What I would say is that I believe that everyone here wants the best for Canada and Canadians. The difference, though, between every other party in the House and Conservatives is that they define “compassion” as how many people the government helps, whereas we define “compassion” as how many people the government does not have to help.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a merry Christmas and a happy Hanukkah to all colleagues here and to the residents of my community of Kelowna—Lake Country.

The member talked a lot about the cost of living and people needing help. People's paycheques are not going as far as they used to. I wonder whether he can expand a bit on how inflation and rising interest rates are affecting families and on how it was really the decisions of the government that have caused these.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, that was part of my speech; unfortunately, I did not make it there.

We have a double-edged sword, because Canadians are getting hit twice: once because of low-economic growth, the worst since the Great Depression, and Canadians' wages not increasing; and a second time because of the government's propensity to outspend any reasonable metric. We have inflation, which is driving up costs; therefore, Canadians are earning less and paying more, which is why the polls look like they do.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:25 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the holidays, I wonder whether my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South would grant me a few words about the topic of the bill, which is the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.

I listened intently to what he shared with the House, and while he touched on many different topics, and I know he is a very intelligent person, he did not speak to the actual topic of the bill at hand, Bill C-58, which is about finally banning replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.

I missed the first 30 seconds or minute of his speech, so perhaps I missed it. If he could repeat it for me, I would much appreciate it.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, I did actually outline the Conservative position on the bill in the first 30 seconds. I am sorry the member missed it.

What I will say is a microcosm of the way Conservatives see the world as opposed to NDP folks. I do have a ton of respect for the member, but that being said, in order to have strong union jobs, jobs that pay the bills, we need a strong economy, and that is what Conservatives are committed to bringing to Canada.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I would just like to wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a great start to 2024.

Thank you all for your support over the past few months.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:25 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, it is real and distinct honour to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-58, which would ban the use of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts. This is a bill that is the result of a lot of work over a lot of years by a lot of folks.

The other day, I had a chance to stand at the press conference here in the foyer when the tabling of this bill was announced. I listened to labour leaders speak about the long history behind this bill and how long workers in this country have been fighting to have their rights protected to ensure that when they make that difficult decision to go on strike, they are not going to be at risk of violence and their rights to collectively bargain are not going to be undermined by the use of replacement workers. This is an effort that has taken place over more than 100 years.

Certainly I am proud to rise as part of the NDP, a party whose roots are in labour and a party that has worked for more than 15 years to bring forward in this House, time and time and time again, bills that would do precisely what would be done by Bill C-58.

This is really a momentous occasion, and I want to take a moment to read into the record part of an email that I received from a constituent who reached out and wanted me to understand what this bill means for him in his workplace.

He wrote to me and said, “Hello again, Mr. Bachrach. ... I've been a union member for over 13 years while working at Telus. ... I've seen Telus attempt to get away with bullying and scare tactics in the workplace to reduce the numbers of our union members and their voice, then benefit from it at the bargaining table, negotiation after negotiation. This time around, we lost more again. I plead with you to assist in pushing the Anti-Scab legislation forward to prevent large corporations...from allowing scabs or replacement workers in to do our work during a dispute and undermining our negotiations.”

That really speaks to the significance of this bill for working people across this country. Nobody takes the decision to go on strike lightly. This is something that affects the families of working people. They need to know that when they make that difficult decision and they choose to exercise their constitutionally protected right to strike, their rights are going to be respected and their rights are not going to be able to be undermined and they are going to be able to fight for better working conditions and to do so in a way that results in a fair and equitable deal at the end of the day.

That brings my time to an end. It is far too little time to do justice to such an important issue. I just want to say how proud I am to stand in this House and support this bill. I do hope that our Conservative friends down the way will also see fit to support Bill C-58. What better message is there to send to the working people of this country than to vote unanimously for this bill to ban replacement workers?

I have a lot of respect for many of my colleagues down the way. I have listened intently to what they have said with respect to this bill, and I do believe—

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:30 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I am sorry. Unfortunately, I do have to interrupt.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 14, 2023, 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.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

February 26th, 2024 / 3:45 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, workers coming together in solidarity, negotiating collectively and at times making the very difficult decision to withhold their labour is something that has raised the material condition of working people in this country for generations and generations. This is not a tactic or a strategy; this is something that is defined in our Constitution.

It is a constitutionally protected right, and yet we have seen again and again consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments undermine the rights of workers in many ways. One of those ways is back-to-work legislation, which we have seen repeatedly in this place. Another of the most pernicious ways workers' rights are undermined is the use of replacement workers, and that is the topic of Bill C-58, which I rise to speak about today on behalf of the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Replacement workers are workers who are brought in by the employer during times of work stoppage, during lockouts and strikes. They are brought in to do the work of unionized workers. When employers use replacement workers, or as they are colloquially referred to, “scabs”, it undermines the ability of unionized workers to negotiate and to secure improvements with their employer through the collective bargaining process.

The use of replacement workers also has a profound impact on communities, especially small communities like the ones I represent. It increases the risk of violence on picket lines. Most significantly of course, it removes the incentive on the part of the employer to bargain in good faith with the employees. The use of replacement workers has been documented as lengthening the duration of labour disputes.

All of these are reasons we need to pass the historic legislation before us. It would be a very significant contribution to the long legacy of codifying workers' rights in Canadian law. It is one that would allow workers to improve their lot at a time when working people in this country are falling farther and farther behind. People are having trouble putting food on the table. People are having trouble accessing the services they need, like pharmacare or dental care, which are things we are also fighting for in this place.

I am exceptionally proud that it is the NDP that once again has forced this historic legislation before us. In fact the NDP has brought forward legislation to ban the use of replacement workers not once, not twice, but eight times over the past 15 years. Each time it has come forward for a vote, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have voted against it, most recently in 2016. Now we have managed, as a party born of and founded by labour, to create the conditions whereby the government has had a change of heart. It has seen the value of banning replacement workers and has chosen, rightly, to work with us to make sure this historic legislation passes through this place.

I cannot say the same for my Conservative colleagues. They are at a very important juncture when it comes to the legislation; the Conservative Party wants the support of working people, and there is a bill before us that is supported by all of the unions in Canada, by the vast majority of working people working under collective agreements.

Conservatives have a choice to make, which is whether they stand with those people to give them an important tool for ensuring that their collective bargaining rights are upheld and their constitutional rights are protected during times of labour dispute, or whether they side with the employers who wish to continue with the status quo and a situation whereby they are able to bring in non-union workers in order to continue production at their facilities. If production is allowed to proceed with the use of replacement workers, the leverage, the negotiating power, of unions is greatly undermined.

This, of course, is legislation that has already been put in place in my home province of British Columbia. I am very proud that we have a progressive provincial government that has seen the value of banning replacement workers. The reality is that the sky has not fallen. The legislation has been in place for some time, and we have seen collective bargaining proceed. We have seen workers manage to negotiate in good faith with their employers and secure benefits they so rightly deserve.

I had a chance to attend the press conference right in the foyer of the House of Commons on the day that the bill was tabled in the House. Standing there listening to labour leaders who have been working on this for decades, hearing them say that it is legislation that working people have been trying to secure for almost as long as Canada has existed, was an emotional moment. It really underlined the historic significance of the bill that is before us.

I will end by recognizing the hard work of my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who worked hard with the Minister of Labour to hammer out the bill we have before us. We want to see it brought into force as quickly as possible, and I sincerely hope that it passes through this place unanimously.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

February 26th, 2024 / 3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member on one point. In 2021, the Liberal election platform did specifically mention that we would bring in legislation to prohibit replacement workers. The mandate letter issued to the Minister of Labour in December 2021 also included this specific thing.

I am glad that British Columbia and Quebec have similar legislation in place. Does the member agree with me that it is time for all provinces to bring in similar legislation to protect the interests of workers?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

February 26th, 2024 / 3:55 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, on the member's second point, I very much agree that every province should bring in similar bans on the use of replacement workers for provincially regulated workplaces. British Columbia and Quebec have led the way, and it is time for other provinces to follow suit.

On his first point, I am always open to being corrected, but usually more when I am wrong. The point I was making was that his party has voted against anti-scab legislation again and again. He mentioned the Liberal platform, and I recognize that there was a commitment in the Liberals' platform. His party commits to a lot of things in its election platform; that does not always result in their moving those things forward when they form government. I will leave it at that. The key difference here is that the legislation before us would apply to both strikes and lockouts, while the election platform of the Liberal Party did not.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

February 26th, 2024 / 3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is passionate about the legislation. He talked about how he was able to talk his coalition partners, the Liberals, into it, but I am interested to know why the Liberals did not include in the scope of the bill the federal PSAC workers. There were 120,000 of them who went on strike, and one would think that if the Liberals thought it was such a terrific idea, they would want to extend the bill to cover not replacing those workers.

Does the member have any thoughts on that?