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

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, given the history of trade unions in this country, can the member make the case, quickly, for how passing Bill C-58 is good for economic stability in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, the question from my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands was about economic stability. The fact is that in provinces without replacement worker legislation, work stoppages have been longer than they have been in provinces that have legislation like this in place.

Bargaining in good faith with unionized employees who have the protection of legislation like this would create stability. That is what the evidence suggests. When workers do better, everyone in our country does better. That is what stability looks like.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak. Today, we are speaking to Bill C-58, which is the legislation that would ban replacement workers. I have some relevant experience on all sides of this issue, being the daughter of someone whose mother was a teacher who went on strike and whose father was a member of the Canadian Auto Workers union who went on strike. My daughter is a nurse. My other daughter is a teacher. I was married to a union welder, a proud member of local 663 and one of the 5,000 union members in Sarnia—Lambton. We are well known worldwide for our high-quality and high-safety performance, and it is certainly considered to be a union town.

At the same time, I worked for many years with Dow Chemical. In the late 1980s, there was a strike, and I was a scab in the strike. I did security and lab testing and had to cross the picket line. I had the experience of how things can escalate during those strike experiences. I bring all of that to my speech today.

I will start out by saying that I am very surprised to see the Liberal government come forward with this legislation. I think about how the Liberals handle their own business. They have increased the use of contractors and consultants by over 60%; it is in the billions of dollars. Is that not really replacement workers from the PSAC union workers who do the work? I think about the arrive scam situation. There is a whole IT department in the government that is full of federal union-sector employees, yet the government decided to get two guys in a basement from GC Strategies and give them $20 million so that they could outsource from other replacement workers. I think the ArriveCAN is to the tune of north of $60 million in costs, but the two guys in the basement, who did no work on it, got $20 million. Certainly, there are lots of people who can outsource and procure within the government; again, are they not replacement workers?

Further, I would note that the government has failed to include federal-sector employees as part of the scope of this legislation. There were 120,000 PSAC workers who went on strike. Therefore, if the government thinks this is a terrific idea, in conjunction with its NDP coalition partners, should it not have said that, if it is great for everybody else, we should put that in place here? Those are just some of the considerations that went through my mind when I started to think about what we needed to do here.

The other example that I would talk about would be the government's taking $40 billion of taxpayer money to put into the Stellantis plant and the battery plant in St. Thomas to create 3,000 jobs and then turning around and, as we found out in the contract, saying there are going to be 1,600 Korean replacement workers. Again, the hypocrisy of the government in the way it acts versus the way it brings this legislation forward makes me really ask the question of whether the government really does support this concept or just has to do something to pacify its NDP marriage partners.

One of the things that are missing in terms of what is in the legislation is something to do with essential workers. We have had a lot of strikes in Canada. There were 147 work stoppages in 2023 alone. It is to the point that we get rail strikes, port strikes and all these different strikes, and our partners in the U.S. are starting to consider that Canada is not a reliable supply chain. Therefore, something needs to be done to address that.

I am fully behind the right to collective bargaining. I am fully behind people having the ability to negotiate fairly, but what is happening is that people are not negotiating, and then, all of a sudden, at the eleventh hour, the impact is felt by everyone. It is felt by CN Rail, where strikes happened. It is thousands and thousands of dollars to businesses. It is inconvenience to travellers, in many cases. We have all seen empty shelves as a result of port strikes. The United States has legislation for essential workers. The way it works is it defines what is considered an essential service or an essential worker, including essential infrastructure for the supply chain and nurses and medical professionals.

What the Americans put in place is this. They have, say, four years between every negotiation. One month before they would go into a strike action place, they have to go to binding arbitration. That causes people to get more serious about negotiating early on and not waiting until the eleventh hour. Think of the parents who every year are threatened with strikes by teachers. All of a sudden there is no child care. It is fine to say we have $10-a-day child care, but if the spaces do not exist, that does not help them, and if the kids cannot go to school, that does not help them either. There are huge impacts that we are missing, and I would have liked to see something in this legislation to address them in a similar way to how they are addressed in the U.S.

The second thing I would say is that there are a couple of technical things I do not think have been well considered. I have worked at chemical and petrochemical facilities and with nuclear and the mining sector. These facilities cannot be shut down on a dime. When it comes to the strike date and time to shut them down, it is not safe to do that. The language in the bill talks about how the only time replacement workers could be used in the case of a strike would be if a specific harm was identified that would occur. The problem with chemical plants, nuclear facilities and whatnot when there is a strike is that we do not know exactly what is going to leak, catch fire, impact the environment or whatever. Something will go wrong; we just do not know specifically what that is, so it would be impossible, then, with the current phraseology, to justify any replacement workers. I think that is something that will definitely need to be addressed.

I would say, as an improvement to the bill, that there are ways of carving out the manufacturing and transfer of substances that are covered under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. That would really take care of this whole area where what it is going to go wrong or what the impacts would be cannot be defined exactly. If exemptions could exist if there was a harm related to the manufacture or transfer of substances covered under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, that might be a reasonable amendment to see.

Hopefully, when this bill gets looked at, people will weigh the balance of things and try to come to a place where we are protecting workers' right to collective bargaining, but I think we need to make sure that we are protecting society and the public from undue harm. The supply chain issue is a real and present danger, with the number of disruptions that we have had. We already lack capacity at our ports. We are lacking rail connectivity in this country. It is not getting better; it is getting worse. With all of those kinds of disruptions, we need to find a way to incorporate “essential worker” and “essential service” as part of this legislation.

Hopefully, at the end of the day, what we would find is that people are bargaining in good faith and bargaining faster. If they do not bargain in good faith, then before they are in a strike position it goes to binding arbitration, which will come to a resolution that maybe neither party will be satisfied with but at least will not have an impact on families, Canadians, businesses and our export partners.

I look forward to the debate and listening to the ideas my colleagues have. I am from a union family. I support union workers. I support the rights of people to collectively bargain. I have been on the other side and can say that it is no fun crossing a picket line.

With that, I look forward to the comments and questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been many years that I have had discussions on issues like anti-scab legislation and final offer selection. I can go back to the very hot debate topics in 1989-90 inside the Manitoba legislature, and I like to think that I have been a strong advocate for anti-scab legislation.

I appreciate a number of the comments the member made. I often look at British Columbia or Quebec and to what degree public servants are incorporated into the legislation. I do not necessarily know the details. I think it is a legitimate question. I would like to see it maybe addressed in more detail as it goes to committee.

The question I have for the member is this. Does the Conservative Party support passing this legislation to go to committee?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can tell the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, first of all, is that I did ask the Minister of Labour when this bill was first introduced whether the federal sector was included, and he indicated it was not. I think that is an opportunity. If it is sauce for the goose, it should be sauce for the gander.

The Conservatives are going to look at what amendments are put forward. As I said, there are some areas where I think the bill needs improvement, so we will be looking for that. At the end of the day, we will look forward to what happens at committee.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, although we are firmly in favour of this—we have stood up to defend this idea 11 times—I get the impression that there is a good deal of smoke and mirrors here. Again, I want to say that we strongly support it. In fact, Quebec has had its anti-scab legislation since 1977.

The bill before us mentions a rather vague exception that talks about a threat to the life, health and safety of any person. What does that mean? Would that not potentially circumvent the right to strike? That needs to be clarified.

Then, the fact that there would be an 18-month delay before the act came into force after royal assent means that, even if the bill were passed tomorrow morning, there would not be time to bring it into force before the next election. I get the impression that the Liberals, who have repeatedly voted down anti-scab legislation every time it has come up for a vote, are once again bribing the NDP by telling themselves that it does not matter, because in 18 months the Conservatives will abolish it when they are in power.

Does my colleague share my interpretation?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that I worked hard to bring in a bill seeking to protect the pension plans of unionized and non-unionized workers. I really want to have a strong bill.

However, there are problems. I agree with eliminating the 18-month delay, because if something is good, it is good immediately. That is my opinion.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech really interesting, although I do not necessarily agree with all the points, and I think she may be confused on a few issues.

The facts are that anti-scab legislation has existed in Quebec and British Columbia for quite a long time and, as my friend said earlier, the sky has not fallen. I have heard all of the Conservative arguments, which are really catastrophic, but we know that so many people in this country want labour to matter because, when scabs walk in, it takes away workers' power to negotiate. This is what this is.

I am wondering if the member will support this bill moving forward and if we are going to maybe get some ideas that the Conservatives want to bring forward. At the end of the day, I hope that every party in the House supports workers.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I absolutely support workers and people's right to collectively bargain. What I have a problem with is that, when people do not come to the table in good faith, things go on and on and, all of a sudden, there are impacts on Canadian families, Canadian businesses and our export partners. These are things that could be eliminated. There are better ways of doing it. We need to look to other countries that do it better.

I am very interested to hear about Quebec's legislation and what exactly it has done. I know there are some facilities, such as chemical facilities, etc., that would need that kind of protection.

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.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to draw members' attention to an event that took place this weekend and that we have not yet discussed in the House, even though it is a major artistic event. I know that members may think that this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but there is a bit of a connection, and I think it is important to point it out.

This weekend, two Quebeckers, a man and a woman, won international film awards. It is important to acknowledge that. On Saturday evening in Paris, Monia Chokri won the César award for best foreign film for The Nature of Love, beating Oppenheimer. This romantic comedy was directed by an actress and director from Quebec who has made movies with Xavier Dolan. She surprised everyone by cleaning up at the awards ceremony in Paris. Once again, Quebec is edging its way in and making its mark on the international scene. Our work is being seen everywhere.

In Berlin on Saturday night, Philippe Lesage, a director in his forties with a few films under his belt, won the Berlinale Grand Prix of the international jury with a film called Who by Fire. I want to repeat something I have often said before. Although this prize for best foreign film was awarded to a film made in Canada, it is the creators, directors and artists from Quebec who make Canada famous abroad in this field, as in so many others. I have often spoken about that in the House.

Soon, unfortunately, that will not be the case. Quebec is going to become independent in the next four or five years. When our artists shine at the Césars, the Oscars or Cannes, they will win awards while representing Quebec. We will still acknowledge Canada on the major world stages. We will thank Canada, which has contributed somewhat to our international reputation.

Getting back to the bill at hand, I am always a little uncomfortable with this type of legislation. Quebec is a progressive place. We have said often in the past and we will say it again. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. For non-federally regulated workers, this issue was settled 50 years ago. We settled the matter 50 years ago. If Quebec were independent, all Quebec workers would be governed by that legislation by now. There would be no scabs. It would be a non-issue.

The same applies to a number of other areas, as I have already said in this place. We are in the midst of a housing crisis. Quebec has the most social housing of any province. Why? When the federal government withdrew from housing in 1993, the Government of Quebec stepped in and took over. It created a social housing construction program called AccèsLogis Québec, which has helped take some sting out of the crisis compared to other parts of the country. There are collateral effects.

Interprovincial immigration will be one of the main causes of inflation in housing prices in the coming years. People are moving from Vancouver or Toronto to Gatineau and Montreal because rent is a little cheaper. There is also a housing crisis in Quebec. There are 10,000 homeless people on the streets in Quebec. I will also talk about that later.

Homelessness has doubled in Quebec in the past five years. The only program that helps folks who are unhoused, the Reaching Home program, is going to be cut by 3% by that government over there. That may not seem like a lot. Some people think it is not so bad. Let us think about what the housing crisis means. It means single mothers sleeping in their cars in Trois‑Rivières. It means immigrant families who thought this would be an El Dorado or paradise, but who are sleeping in tents by the river in -30°C weather in Saint‑Jérôme. How can we stand for such a thing? The government is going to cut that program by 3% because it wants to show the Conservatives that it can be fiscally responsible. Because of that, it is turning its back on the most vulnerable. It makes absolutely no sense.

Which province has the least amount of greenhouse gases and produces the least? Which province is performing best in a country that is not performing well at all? On every climate change indicator, Canada ranks last. It always comes dead last.

This brings me to the IMF study that mentioned in 2022, Canada spent $50 billion on the oil industry. That is $50 billion in direct and indirect aid to the oil industry. How can we stand for such a thing in the middle of a housing crisis, when we need to build 3.5 million housing units according to the CMHC, but five million according to the latest study by CIBC? Imagine how far off the mark we are.

In the meantime, people are sleeping in the streets, single mothers, women fleeing domestic violence, persons with disabilities and students are sleeping in their cars. They question these studies. We need these people. They are the workers of tomorrow. In the meantime, Canada, with support from the Conservatives, is throwing $50 billion at the oil companies, which raked in $200 billion in profits in 2022. How can we stand for such a thing?

Speaking of progressive, Quebec has more women in the workforce than anywhere else in Canada. Why is that? It is thanks to day care. Who was behind the day care program? It was Pauline Marois, a great politician and a great woman from Quebec whom I salute today. She was premier and a visionary. Quebec created $5-a-day day care, government-funded day care. Two things happened as a result. It brought more women into the workforce, and it made it possible for Quebec to achieve the lowest child poverty rate in Canada. That is quite something. Those are big steps forward.

Nowadays, we have sat back and watched Canada become more and more progressive. The government adopted the national child care program last year. That is great. It is hard for us to be against that, because we already had one. The same goes for the dental care program. It is hard for us to be against that, because we already had one. We cannot be against the pharmacare program either, because we already have one.

We, the members of the Bloc Québécois, are sitting here in the House, discussing bills and battles that have already been waged and won. It is sad to say, but Canada is a millstone around Quebec's neck. We are ready to make progress and move forward, but Canada keeps holding us back. Canada keeps dragging its feet and maintaining the status quo. It is not moving forward. Inflation is out of control. More and more people are living in the streets. I spoke about it earlier. The federal government is failing seniors. It is not doing nearly enough to address climate change. Canada is not moving forward. Quebec is ready to push ahead, but Canada is standing in its way.

What are Quebeckers supposed to think when they watch our debates and see these bills and the federal anti-scab bill? They are wondering why these measures have not been passed yet, why this has still not been settled, and whether the federal government is stuck in 1975. How can we trust this country? How can anyone want to be part of it? A Quebec worker looking at this, assuming know he does not work for the feds and knows nothing about it, would think the matter has been settled for 50 years. His company is not allowed to use scabs. He looks at this situation and wonders why Canada is still where it is and why this issue has not been settled. No, it is not settled.

As my colleague said earlier, the Bloc Québécois has tabled 11 bills on this subject. We have been working on this for a long time. My NDP colleague said earlier that his party has introduced eight bills. The Liberals blocked them every time. It just does not make sense anymore. The Government of Canada has to move into the 21st century. It has to get into the business of protecting workers. Giving them leverage with employers is fundamental. It forms the basis of everything; otherwise, bargaining power does not exist.

By the way, I forgot to mention that Quebec is the province with the highest unionization rate in Canada. Quebec understands the importance of banding together and the importance of unions.

Quebec realizes that workers have more power against the employer when they work together. It is high time we—

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

We have to go to questions and comments now.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe like you, I was so involved in listening to the hon. member that I wanted him to go on.

Could the member mention the recent impacts on the Port of Montreal and the labour disputes, and how this legislation might help to add balance so that we do not have prolonged disputes, as we have seen recently in Montreal at the port?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the question with another question.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, workers have been there at the port of Québec for 200 days. They have been close to the breaking point for 200 days. They even had to find other jobs so they could stand up to the employer and keep the negotiations going. It has been 200 days. How can such a thing be accepted in Canada?

These people have no leverage. Allow me to underscore once again that this bill will not become law until 18 months after it receives royal assent. What might happen in the next 18 months? There could be a federal election. What might happen in the federal election? The Conservatives could come to power.

Does anyone seriously think that the Conservatives would vote for a bill put forward by the NDP and Liberals? I think not.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to follow Quebec's and B.C.'s leadership across this country to make sure that workers are protected. It has been very concerning for me to hear the Conservative rhetoric that somehow the workers are disrupting the flow of goods, which is absolutely shameful. When we think about the workers, what they are really doing is fighting for their rights to work collectively to make sure they are safe.

I wonder if the member could talk a little about why it is important for workers to have rights and what that does for the economy and for the good of all people when those unions are respected.