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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, 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.

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, 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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is a good question and a fair one, and it is a good question to pose to the party across the way when they speak on this topic. It is absolutely something we support.

When we drag the governing party, kicking and screaming, to see the value of the legislation we have been fighting for, for decades and decades, that is a negotiation. When the negotiation does not go as far as we would like it to go, we are still going to secure wins for working people. The question of why it does not go as far as it should really rests with the folks across the way.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, civilian employees of the armed forces are currently locked out and scab workers are replacing them.

The government does not seem to be acting, despite the bill that is on the table. Port of Québec workers have also been locked out for many months. It will soon be two years, if that is not already the case.

However, the bill does not include people who are currently locked out or on strike. Does my colleague agree that this is a loophole that needs to be addressed as soon as possible?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc raises an important point, which is that this legislation, which is still being debated and still has to make its way through the other place, does nothing for workers who are, right now, facing conditions that could be alleviated by it.

I think that underlines the importance of passing this bill through this place as quickly as possible. Rather than waiting 18 months after the time it is brought into force for its terms to take effect, we must ensure that workers are protected by its provisions as soon as possible, as quickly as possible. That is something I believe we share as a priority, and I hope it is something that we can see strengthened in the legislation before us.