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.

[Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Canola Growers Association to speak to you today during your study of Bill C-58.

The CCGA is a national association governed by a board of farmer-directors and represents Canada's 43,000 canola farmers on issues and policies that impact on-farm profitability.

I recognize this isn't the House agriculture committee, so I'll briefly provide an overview of our sector.

Canada typically produces 20 million tonnes of canola annually and exports over 90%, in three forms: seed, oil or meal. These products are exported to 50 countries, and in 2023 our exports were worth $15.8 billion. Canada's the world's largest producer and exporter of canola, and our industry supports 207,000 jobs and contributes $29.9 billion to the Canadian economy annually.

Canola travels, on average, over 1,500 kilometres from the farm where it is grown to an export position. There is no alternative in long-distance transportation of our products across the continent: We are completely reliant on Canada's two class I railways to get the majority of our product to market, both now and into the future.

Transportation of grain is one of several commercial elements that directly affect the prices offered to farmers. When issues arise in the supply chain, the price farmers receive for their grain can drop, even at a time when commodity prices may be high in the global marketplace. When rail service is disrupted, the worst-case scenario is that space in grain elevators and process facilities becomes full, and then grain companies stop buying grain and accepting deliveries from farmers. This can occur even when a farmer has an existing contract for delivery, potentially straining their ability to have cash flow into their operations. This is the major reason that western Canadian farmers have such an interest in rail transportation: It directly affects individual farmer income, and beyond that, the ability of Canada's railways to move grain to export critically affects Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of canola to the world.

Today's grain supply chain is predicated on having the right grain in the right place at the right time. There are a lot of moving parts in this complex system, including trucks, inland collection points, railways, port terminal facilities and marine vessels. All are needed in order to move canola from the Prairies, where it is grown, to international customers, where it is demanded. In such a complex system, in any given year there will inevitably be incidents and events that negatively impact the fluidity and on-time execution of the supply chain. Weather, infrastructure damage and other unforeseen events are often outside our influence or control. In Canada we have enough risk to our supply chains from natural causes in any given year, so ones of our own making must be avoided.

Broadly speaking, elements we do have control over are labour agreements and organized work environments. However, we have observed ongoing and concerning levels of instability between our class I railways and their labour in recent years.

Currently our industry, and Canada, is bracing for the possibility of both class I railways having labour disruptions as early as next month. Even if a strike is avoided, we are concerned that as the May deadline approaches, there'll be significant impacts on service for weeks or months to come.

We saw a similar situation in March 2022, when one of our class I railways approached the brink of labour action with one of their labour groups. Ultimately, a shutdown was avoided at the eleventh hour, but there were still ramifications for supply chain fluidity from even the threat of labour action. In advance of labour deadlines, the railways began curtailing operations, sending a wave of logistical disruptions and delays back through the supply chain that took weeks to rectify. In November 2019, a class I railway did have labour action that affected operations for a full week, with effects reverberating for months. Given the complexity of this system, it generally takes six to seven days to recover for every one day of service disruption.

I ask you, as parliamentarians on this committee, to consider these labour issues from the lens of our international customers and competitors. Over the last decade, our customers have seen strikes or threats of strikes, both of which disrupt the grain transportation system and affect Canada's ability to reliably supply our customers. This has led to Canada building a reputation as an unreliable supplier and trading partner.

Labour-to-management issues naturally reside between those parties. It is a tenuous balancing act that is enshrined in law and evolving jurisprudence. It is not our intention, as a farm organization, to suggest a solution for these issues but rather to highlight the second- and third-order effects when labour issues do arise. We want to produce more, grow more and expand our exports to drive our economy's growth, and labour is needed to get our products from the farm gate to an export position.

Looking forward, we clearly see further rising demand for our agricultural products, both domestically and internationally. At the end of the day, farmers will not be able to capitalize on the opportunities from increasing demand or trade agreements without a reliable rail and labour system that grain shippers and our global customers have confidence in. Bill C-58 will likely compound the significant issues that our sector is already facing through labour and supply chain uncertainties.

[Ginette Brazeau, Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board]

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to appear before you this morning as part your study of Bill C-58.

I intend to speak about the board and its work, its responsibilities and its structures, and explain the impact that Bill C-58 is likely to have on the board’s operations.

To this end, I provided a reference document entitled “Information Document relating to the Canada Industrial Relations Board”, which I believe was distributed to the committee members.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal that deals with labour relations and employment complaints and requests. We offer mediation to help the parties reach a settlement and, when necessary, we adjudicate disputes between them.

The board consists of a chair, five full-time vice-chairs, and three part-time vice-chairs. There are also six members representing employers and employees in equal numbers. The panels appointed to hear and decide cases are made up of one vice-chair and two members. Members therefore cannot sit alone to decide cases.

The board is responsible for applying and interpreting various statutes, including the Status of the Artist Act, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and, of course, the Canada Labour Code, which in itself comprises four distinct legislative regimes: Part I, which relates to labour relations; Part II, for health and safety matters; Part III, which deals with minimum labour standards; and Part IV, which deals with an administrative monetary penalty regime.

Traditionally, the board was responsible for part I of the code—industrial relations. In 2019, amendments were brought to the code that made the board responsible for all parts of the code. At that time, the code was also amended to allow the chairperson to appoint external adjudicators to help us deal with certain types of cases. You will see from chart 1 in the document that was distributed that since those changes came into force in 2019, the board's caseload has doubled. We went from about 500 cases a year to 1,000 cases a year.

At the time these changes were made in 2019, there was funding identified for the board's new responsibilities. An amount of $3.4 million was approved for this purpose. However, it's important to note that the board does not have its own appropriations and does not have autonomy in the administration and management of all of its affairs. The board's financial and human resources are allocated and managed by the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, the ATSSC.

The ATSSC was created through legislative amendments in 2014. At that time, amendments were also made to remove the chairperson's role as a chief executive officer of the board and her authority to direct and manage the board's resources, budget and other administrative matters. Any funding that is identified or approved for the board is in fact allocated to the ATSSC, which exercises all the financial authorities and in turn determines how best to allocate the funding to the various tribunals it supports.

As it relates to the approved funding in 2019, my observation is that the amount of $3.4 million has not consistently flowed through to the board. Our initial budget allocations over the last five years have not seen an equivalent increase. You will see that in chart 4 in the document.

This unpredictable allocation of funds makes it difficult to plan and address the board's caseload in a stable manner. This past fiscal year, for example, I was unable to assign any new files to external adjudicators for a period of eight months as there were insufficient funds allocated for this purpose. As a result, the board has accrued a significant backlog of cases and is experiencing increased delays in processing cases. You'll see that in chart 2.

The board's ability to respond effectively and in a timely manner to the disputes that come to us requires sufficiency of funds and the ability and flexibility to swiftly align or realign human and financial resources as the board sees fit in order to respond appropriately.

All this is to say that if Bill C-58 passes, it will be challenging for the board, with its existing structure and resources, to deal with complaints of replacement workers on an expedited basis or for the board to address all maintenance of activities matters within 90 days without further impacting other types of cases that come to the board.

I'm aware that the committee will have questions for me regarding the timeline for coming into force. In order to be prepared to meet the quick turnaround times that are required by this bill, there are two areas that will require attention.

The first is the resources. I've asked for additional vice-chairs to be appointed to the board and for additional resources to support the work.

The second area is the need for new rules and regulations to be able to review and deal with these matters within 90 days. That will entail development of the rules, consultations with our stakeholders, drafting and adopting of those new rules, and communication materials to ensure that people who come before the board understand the new process we want to put in place to deal with these matters.

As you can see, this will involve considerable work and several steps.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this subject.

Thank you.

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

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 109 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, although all of the committee members and witnesses are here in the room.

I will go over a couple of comments.

You have the option to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation is available using the headset in front of you. Click on the language you choose to participate in.

I will ask you to keep your earpieces away from the mics, if you use them. Otherwise, they can cause popping that can hurt the interpreters.

Please direct all of your questions through me, the chair. Wait until I recognize you by name before you proceed. To get my attention, please raise your hand.

If there's a breakdown in the interpretation services, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 27, 2024, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations, 2012.

For the first hour, we will have the final group of witnesses who will appear for the review of Bill C-58.

Appearing today in the room is Ginette Brazeau, chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Welcome, madam.

From the Canadian Canola Growers Association, we have Dave Carey, vice-president, government and industry relations.

From the Canadian Telecommunications Association, we have Robert Ghiz, president and chief executive officer, and Eric Smith, senior vice-president.

Before we begin, I do have to acknowledge that Mr. Ghiz's father was responsible for convincing me to enter politics and public life back in 1982.

Welcome, Mr. Ghiz.

Each of you will have five minutes or less to give opening remarks. We'll begin with Madame Brazeau.

Chairperson, please go ahead for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

There's been a motion to adjourn debate on the motion. I'm going to call a vote on the motion to adjourn debate only.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Debate is adjourned on this particular motion.

We are running out of time. Will committee members indulge me for a moment or two for some committee business?

Currently for Thursday, April 18, the committee plans to hear from witnesses on Bill C‑58 for the first hour. For the second hour, we will go into committee business to conclude the consideration of the draft report on artificial intelligence. I hope for the indulgence of the committee to get to the second version as well, so committee members should be prepared to do that. Again, that's so we can create some time in June to get to housing.

Also be prepared, if we get through version 2 of the artificial intelligence report, to look at version 1 of the volunteerism study report. You will have it tomorrow. I would like to begin version 1 of the report on volunteerism in that last hour.

I'm know I'm being very ambitious, but I'm getting some nods from Mr. Aitchison.

I just wanted to give you a note on that. That's what my plans are for the second hour. Also, I'll have to get approval for five budget items to cover the scrumptious lunches we've been having at committee as well as to invite committee members.

With that, thank you for your time. We did conclude the majority of the discussion on Bill C‑58 today, so thank you.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

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

Thank you.

There's fearmongering out there, whether on Twitter or in statements. Along with 70 other labour experts and professors, you urged the government to adopt Bill C-58. You went on about what was happening with legislation in Quebec and British Columbia. I'm sure members from the NDP and the Bloc would agree that, again, there doesn't seem to be any kind of economic collapse happening as a result of it.

Could you expand on that fearmongering about economic collapse? As soon as a strike happens or appears it will happen, there are right-wing interventions that say it has to stop, sometimes even before it starts. Could you please comment on that?

Perhaps I'll let my union friends make a comment on that as well.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Last week, there were some questions for FETCO at the end of the meeting about claims that 911 or other emergency services may go down due to this legislation. I just want to be clear on that. Its March 12 communication entitled “The Urgent Need to Amend Bill C-58” says, “The absence of these workers during strikes could lead to severe disruptions, endangering everything from home heating and emergency communications to the delivery of life-saving medical supplies and the refueling of commercial aircraft.”

An emergency communication isn't explicitly 911. I'll point out that twice, on February 20 and February 21, FETCO shared an op-ed by Robin Guy that asserted, “during a strike replacement workers would not be able to fix problems. Customers in an affected area could be without even emergency services—including access to 911, be their need ambulance, fire department or police.”

As discussed, and it seems like our witnesses had agreed with me, not only would 911 services be protected by the maintenance of activities process, but Bill C-58 would actually improve this process to protect the health and safety of Canadians and prevent serious environmental or property damage.

I just wanted to clear that up, because we ran out of time as we were finishing.

My first question is for Professor Smith. We heard from FETCO and other corporate groups that raised concerns around Bill C-58 about how it might increase the frequency of strikes. In November 2023, you published an article in the Monitor entitled “Anti-scab legislation does not increase strikes, despite corporate propaganda”.

Professor, could you speak more about your findings after Quebec and B.C. tabled legislation banning the use of replacement workers? I noticed that you ran out of time.

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

Thanks very much.

One thing that left me sort of scratching my head when I looked at the legislation is that there doesn't seem to be a good definition of what a contractor is versus a dependent contractor. I think that falls into one of the loopholes that everyone is talking about today.

Do you think “dependent contractor” has been redefined effectively in Bill C-58 for the CLC? If not, what would you do to make that definition better?

Does anyone want to take a stab at that?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to the committee and I'm new to this study. I was going through and reading some of the testimony from before, and one thing that jumped out at me was what Lana Payne said when she was here. She said, “No country has achieved shared progress and prosperity for working people without strong unions and strong collective bargaining laws.” I'm assuming everyone here agrees with that. I want to say that I agree with that one hundred per cent as well.

I told the previous panel a personal story. My son works in the construction industry. He worked for two private companies. Of course, he was treated well. Now he works for a large company in a union and his life is incredibly better. His pay is better. Safety is better. The benefits and opportunities are better. His life has dramatically improved because he is in a union.

I fundamentally believe that unions create better-paying jobs for Canadians. That's what I want to come to with my questions on this bill. I want everyone to know that.

When I look at the bill, one thing I look at is the section on fines when there is an offence. Clause 12 of Bill C-58 would add a new section, 101.1, to the CLC to establish that if an employer contravenes the rules on the prohibited use of replacement workers, there could be a $100,000 fine “for each day during which the offence is committed or continued.”

Taking out how long these things might take to be deliberated upon, do you think that fine is sufficient? Where do you folks stand on that?

Everyone can take a turn answering.

[Donna Hokiro, President, United Steelworkers Local 1944]

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today to talk about this vital piece of legislation.

I'm Donna Hokiro, president of Local 1944 of the United Steelworkers. Our local union represents over 5,000 members across Canada, mostly federally regulated in the telecom sector.

Allow me to start with this: No one goes on strike for the fun of it—nobody. It's never a decision that union members take lightly. Arguably, it's the hardest.

Importantly, when the employer decides to lock out workers, they don't consult the union and they threaten the very livelihood of their workers—our members. Strikes and lockouts have always had significant impacts on workers. The use of scabs escalates an already difficult situation and has the potential to impact an entire community. It turns workers against each other, neighbours against neighbours and sometimes even members of the same family against each other.

Our local union has experienced such situations in the past. Familial brothers who both worked at Telus came to blows when one crossed the picket line while the other honoured it. This one act of scabbing by one of the real-life brothers affected their family, so much so that Christmas, birthdays, other holidays and special occasions could not be celebrated together. Countless relationships and friendships have never been restored.

This affects our members and your constituents. That's why we have been fighting for anti-scab legislation for decades.

Anti-scab legislation already exists in British Columbia and Quebec. It has been proven that bans on scabs reduce the number and length of labour disputes and restore the balance in collective bargaining. More importantly, it upholds workers' constitutional rights and leads to better working and living conditions. However, the bill before us falls short because it includes loopholes that could allow employers to bypass the ban and includes unnecessary delays that postpone workers' protection.

First, anyone performing the job of a worker on strike or lockout must be included in the ban, whenever they were hired. Of course, we accept exceptions for work necessary to prevent an imminent threat to life, health and safety, destruction of property or environmental damage, but we also submit that an agreement on who will perform conservation work must be reached between both the employer and the union and must not be decided by the employer alone.

Also, the waiting period for the CIRB to issue an interim or bottom line decision on the maintenance of activities needs to be cut from 90 to 45 days to ensure employers don't use delaying practices before workers can exercise their right to strike.

Importantly, we need to get rid of the current wording that gives scabs preferential reinstatement over existing employees after a labour dispute. That makes no sense.

Next, the labour code already defines “employee” to include dependent contractors. This exception needs to be removed to make it clear that they are not allowed to cross the picket line.

Finally, the delay before the implementation of this bill needs to be removed. The government needs to show they are serious about this law, and it must come into force before the next election to make it harder for the next government, whoever it may be, to repeal it before workers have had a chance to benefit from it.

I spoke of Telus earlier, but it's not just them. Rogers, having made big promises to the current government to ensure that the acquisition of Shaw closed smoothly, instead locked out 288 of my members in Vancouver and Surrey, British Columbia, before the ink was even dry on the approval. They brought workers in from other parts of Canada, telling them that they would be helping with extra work because of the merger.

Worse still, near the end of the lockout, the B.C. labour board ruled in favour of a provincially regulated contractor, allowing it to force its technicians—against their wishes—to cross our federal picket lines. This unfortunate loophole is being rectified by the provincial government in B.C.

Please ensure this new legislation respects any picket line, regardless of what jurisdiction it falls under. A picket line is a picket line is a picket line. For the sake of all federally regulated workers, we respectfully ask you to adopt these amendments and get Bill C-58 passed and implemented swiftly.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Mark Hancock, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to all the members of the committee.

My name is Mark Hancock, and I'm the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

CUPE represents more than 740,000 frontline public service workers across the country. Over 30,000 CUPE members work in federally regulated industries, such as airlines, communications, public transportation, ports, cash transit and security, as well as in indigenous councils and services.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-58 and the urgent need for anti-scab legislation in Canada.

I want to sincerely thank the NDP and the Liberals for including this commitment in the supply and confidence agreement, and for supporting anti-scab legislation clearly and publicly.

I also want to thank the Bloc Québécois for its support.

I also want to thank all MPs of all political parties for the unanimous vote in favour of Bill C-58 at second reading.

Why is collective bargaining so important that it is a charter-protected right in this country and in many countries around the world? It's because it is the only tool that workers have to correct a fundamental power imbalance between them and their employers. It is this inequity that Bill C-58 aims to address because collective bargaining without a real right to strike is deeply flawed.

This bill will also correct a disproportionate advantage that employers currently have: the ability to lock out their unionized employees and replace them with non-union workers without restriction. This is a practice that allows for a collective dismissal during bargaining.

Right now, as we speak, two groups of CUPE members working under the federal jurisdiction are victims of this vicious tactic. The committee has already heard about them. They are the Quebec port workers, SCFP 2614, and the Videotron employees in Gatineau, SCFP 2815. Some of them are here today.

Longshore workers in Quebec have been locked out for 18 months. Our members are asking for a basic work-life balance because workers cannot ignore their family responsibilities to work extraordinary hours of overtime due to systemic understaffing. Meanwhile, untrained workers are coming in every day to work as scabs, putting the safety of operations and staff at risk.

Employees of Videotron working in Gatineau were locked out in October 2023. They are simply asking to keep their jobs in Canada. Videotron is circumventing their collective agreement protections by locking them out and contracting out their work overseas, where workers are mistreated with impunity and paid a fraction of what Videotron pays its employees in Canada.

While it is business as usual for these two employers, our members and their families are experiencing the devastating and real impacts of this fundamental power imbalance.

Bill C-58 is a step in the right direction to bring fairness to labour relations at the federal level by getting rid of scabs, but the bill has loopholes. We urge you all to consider our recommendations to make this legislation work more effectively.

First, proposed subsection 94(4) should be a prohibition on performing any struck work or locked-out work. Exceptions should be limited to preventing imminent danger to the health and safety of the public or to the environment, or the threat of destruction to the workplace.

Second, the enforcement mechanism should include workplace investigations, as in Quebec. Investigations already exist in the Canada Labour Code for health and safety and labour standards, so it would be easy to replicate.

Third, the prohibition on using scabs should come into force immediately when the bill is adopted. There is no reason to delay the implementation of proposed subsection 94(4). The CIRB already has the authority to issue orders for unfair labour practices, and there is no need for further regulations there.

Finally, I have a few words on essential services. We heard business representatives talk about expanding the definition of essential services to include different types of economic disruptions, but that's what strikes are about: disruption.

As I said before, because it seeks to address a fundamental inequality, the right to strike is a charter-protected right. That means any limit to striking activity must comply with charter guarantees. If essential services are guaranteed to include economic disruption, this restriction on the right to strike will be unconstitutional.

You know that our members will not remain silent when our fundamental rights are attacked. Just ask Premier Ford.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, committee members.

We will begin the second hour of our deliberations on Bill C-58 with our new witnesses.

We have Charles Smith as an individual, appearing virtually. From the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Mark Hancock and Annick Desjardins. From the United Steelworkers, Local 1944, we have Donna Hokiro and Corey Mandryk.

Welcome.

We'll begin with Professor Smith for five minutes or less.

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

There has been an act in Quebec since 1977. Quebec's Labour Code expressly provides that the Minister of Labour may investigate a place of work during a strike or lockout to ensure that anti-scab provisions are being complied with. During a strike or lockout, workers may not be at the place of work or ascertain what is going on there. They may observe what the replacement workers are doing outdoors, but not indoors.

Mr. Lapierre, do you think a similar provision should be added to Bill C-58? It currently provides no such thing.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Abou‑Dib, you made an interesting point when you said we have to be able to make the necessary checks to determine whether the use of scabs is illegal or whether the agreement reached between the parties before the dispute is being complied with.

I was lucky, in a way, to visit a picket line consisting of workers subject to Quebec's anti-scab law. However, as it took too long to get inspectors on the ground, even the Quebec law, which is well known and has been enforced for decades, wasn't always complied with.

How important is it to avoid that trap in Bill C-58?

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

Thank you, Mr. Lapierre.

I want to say that I also agree with you that, if a business brings in subcontractors before sending a notice to negotiate, the subcontractors shouldn't be entitled to do the work of the members of the accreditation unit once the labour dispute is over. I think you're raising a major point there, which is very important.

Mr. Strickland, continuing in the same vein, I was quite appalled to hear you say that a labour dispute in British Columbia had lasted six years because scabs had been brought in. That's terrible.

You said something interesting in one sentence, that Bill C-58 would help stabilize the right to bargain collectively and help workers go back to work.

Would you please provide some more details on the subject, citing the LTS Solutions case that you discussed earlier?

[Mariam Abou-Dib, Executive Director, Government Affairs, Teamsters Canada]

Honourable members of this parliamentary committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you today on behalf of Teamsters Canada. As the executive director and on behalf of President François Laporte and 135,000 members across various sectors of the Canadian economy, I am here to present our views on the legislation aiming to prohibit replacement workers in federally regulated industries.

Teamsters Canada is Canada's transportation and supply chain union, representing workers in all modes of transport, including air, rail, road and many other sectors. Our organization is deeply committed to protecting the rights and interests of workers in Canada, which is fundamental to a healthy Canadian economy.

The practice of using replacement workers violates the rights of striking or locked-out workers, violates the rights of workers, compromises their dignity and autonomy in the workplace and undermines the collective bargaining process. It breeds resentment and frustration among workers and increases the likelihood of violence on picket lines. Moreover, allowing replacement workers exacerbates the power imbalance between workers and employers, leading to poorer working conditions for all workers in the long term.

The use of replacement workers in federally regulated sectors is a significant problem. According to Canada's labour program, replacement workers have been used in approximately 42% of strikes over the past 10 years.

Now is the time to reform our laws and truly protect the constitutional rights of workers in Canada to negotiate their working conditions collectively with employers and to withhold their labour as a last form of leverage in that process. I will remind the committee that Canada's Supreme Court has recognized strikes as an “indispensable component” of collective bargaining. Teamsters Canada also agrees with the International Labour Organization that replacement workers constitute “a serious violation of freedom of association”.

As with any type of legislation, the details matter tremendously. Although the current iteration of the bill is good, there are still areas where the language must be refined in order to avoid effectively creating loopholes for some employers. Our written submission acknowledges areas of the bill that we are particularly pleased with, such as not limiting the banning of replacement workers to an “establishment”, hence recognizing that today's material workplace is not what counts. Things have changed and the actual work is what counts in the context of replacement workers.

While we also believe there should be limited exceptions within the law in order to protect public health and public safety and to prevent significant damage to property, these exceptions should be well defined and subject to robust enforcement provisions to prevent abuse.

Enforcing a ban on replacement workers requires a comprehensive approach. We also recommend providing union representatives access to establishments when on strike or lockout for the purposes of monitoring and reporting any violations. Additionally, the government should establish a mechanism for expedited intervention to address non-compliance and ensure the effective enforcement of the ban.

Persistent and repeated procedural delays in the bargaining process are ultimately a threat to the rights of workers to bargain and strike. Any maintenance of activities process should not present any substantial delays to the bargaining process. In this regard, when there is no agreement, Bill C‑58 requires one of the parties to submit an application of referral to the CIRB for a ruling on the maintenance of essential services. We believe the submission should be automatic to reduce additional delays in granting the right to strike to workers.

On the coming into force of the law, Bill C‑58 states that this will take place 18 months after it receives royal assent. Our contention is that this timeline is excessive and unnecessary and that meaningful investments in the CIRB should be made as soon as possible in order to facilitate reducing this timeline to six months at the most.

We believe that a ban on replacement workers, if done effectively, will benefit working people and their families and will lead to improved labour relations and a more just distribution of the fruits of progress. We also believe this will contribute to shaping an economy in which we create not just more jobs but more good jobs, with fairness and dignity for those performing them.

The passing of this law comes at the right time. We are living in times when all political parties are seeking ways to protect and appeal to the middle class. Moreover, there has been a dangerous trend from certain provincial governments, which have been found by the courts to have flouted the rights of workers. We must set the bar higher and not risk turning back the clock on hard-won advancements for workers in this country.

In conclusion, adopting legislation to prohibit replacement workers in federally regulated sectors is a necessary step for protecting the rights of workers and promoting fair labour practices. It is crucial for governments to uphold the charter rights of workers by ensuring that the right to effectively strike is respected and not undermined by the use of replacement workers. By doing so, we can create a more equitable and just society for all Canadians.

Thank you for your attention. I'm open to any questions, and I look forward to further discussion on this.