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.

[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.

[Sean Strickland, Executive Director, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Sean Strickland, and I serve as the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions. We are the national voice for over 600,000 skilled tradespeople in Canada who belong to 14 international unions and work in 60 occupations and trades.

I'm pleased to be here today along with my colleagues to advocate for speedy passage of Bill C-58, and remind this committee how critical this legislation is.

Banning replacement workers will protect workers' rights, prioritize the collective bargaining process and get workers back to the job. It will stabilize the bargaining process for federally regulated industries and positively impact almost a million workers.

When workers decide to withdraw their labour and strike, these decisions are not taken lightly. Generally, it's the last option after all other bargaining approaches have failed. Allowing the use of replacement workers—scabs—undermines the bargaining powers of workers in the negotiation process and removes the incentive for employers to avoid a strike or lockout. Strikes during which employers choose to hire replacement workers take longer to resolve, and that hurts families and communities.

We don't have to look back very far to understand the negative effects replacement workers can have on our workforce. In British Columbia, 238 workers attempted to bargain with LTS Global Solutions, a subsidiary of Ledcor, as a local established under the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 213. Since 2017, they had sought a collective agreement to improve working conditions, establish job security and secure fair wages. The majority of those workers were technicians, installing and repairing telecommunications equipment as contractors for Telus.

After union certification, the employer, LTS, refused to meet with the union for bargaining, and after two years without a collective agreement, the workers voted to go on strike. Rather than engaging in good-faith collective bargaining, LTS responded by bringing in replacement workers. As a result, the strike ended up lasting nearly six years, with the deal only occurring in June 2023.

It took a unanimous ruling from the Canada Industrial Relations Board to end it. Why? As telecommunications workers, they fell under federal labour laws. Unlike other workers in B.C., who were protected, there was no incentive for LTS to get back to the bargaining table because LTS could continue with business as usual, ignore its obligations to the unionized employees and use its considerable resources to drag the whole process through the courts for almost six long years. This has to change, as it has in some provinces.

Provincially, we've seen similar legislation successfully implemented in both B.C. and Quebec. British Columbia's labour relations code prohibits employers from using replacement workers, regardless of whether they're being paid to do the work. In Quebec, the labour code represents the most comprehensive ban on replacement workers. It covers almost all workers, except health care and public safety workers, and those sectors regulated by the Canada Labour Code.

Obviously, there's a gap between the Canada Labour Code and provincial labour codes. In B.C. and Quebec, that needs to be addressed for the benefit of all federally regulated workers. The success in both provinces amplifies how banning replacement workers protects workers' rights, improves collective bargaining and reduces the duration of strikes when they do occur.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I urge you to ensure speedy passage of this bill. Let's get this done for Canadian workers and their families.

I look forward to the discussion and your questions.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, committee members. I will call the meeting to order.

The clerk has advised that we have a quorum and that those appearing virtually have been sound-tested and are good.

Welcome to meeting number 108 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, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually using Zoom.

I would like to make a few comments, primarily for the benefit of the witnesses who are new to us.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice.

In the room, interpretation services are available by using the headset and selecting the language of your choice. For those here virtually, please select the globe icon at the bottom of your screen to choose the language of your choice.

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

For those in the room, please make sure your earpiece is not close to the microphone, because it will create popping, which can be harmful to the interpreters.

Please direct any questions you may have through the chair. To get my attention, please raise your hand. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon at the bottom of your screen.

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.

Appearing in the first hour today, we have, from Canada's Building Trades Unions, Sean Strickland, executive director; from Teamsters Canada, by video conference, Mariam Abou-Dib, executive director, government affairs; and from the United Steelworkers union, Nicolas Lapierre, assistant to the Quebec director, who is here in the room.

Welcome. Each of you will have five minutes or less for your opening statement.

We will begin with Mr. Strickland for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I have heard testimony not only at this committee but also at the trade committee, so I'll correct your assumption as well that replacement workers prolong strikes. Everyone is saying that replacement workers, whether put in place during a lockout or during a strike, prolong the strike, because, again, no one is at the table when they're there. That is what we've heard at this committee and at other committees, and through consultations.

On that note, FETCO had pointed to the track record of previous bills banning the use of replacement workers, which have not been passed in the House of Commons. However, it's important to note the differences between those bills and Bill C-58, which promotes a tripartite approach to consulting with the unions, government and businesses. This included unions and business leaders sitting shoulder to shoulder at multiple round tables. There were extensive consultations that included round tables, 55 stakeholders and 71 written submissions.

I understand that the consultations were even extended to January 31, 2023, and, at FETCO's request, included many other businesses and stakeholders. We listened and we consulted broadly in a tripartite approach, and that informed our legislation.

Was FETCO consulted on the drafting of the bills preceding C-58 that you pointed to as not being successful?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for allowing me to be here today to hear the testimony from the previous group of folks and these folks on this really important legislation ahead of us.

I've been on both sides of the bargaining table. I've bargained for the union and I've bargained with the union. At the end of the day, the best deals are at the table. That's the purpose of this—to keep people at the table. When people walk away from the table, no deals are being done. There are no negotiations.

My first question is for you, Derrick. One thing Bill C-58 talks about is a “maintenance of activities”. Your organization, FETCO, has claimed that this bill will lead to such critical services as 911 being cut off due to a strike. I did some research into the maintenance of activities process. I found that in 2003, Telus reached a maintenance of activities agreement with Telecommunications Workers Union. It stipulated that members would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during the labour dispute to repair telecommunications services for police, fire, ambulance, 911, hospitals and the Coast Guard.

I noticed that in the last panel, Mr. Collins asked the unions if these agreements were normal. In fact, they said they couldn't imagine a scenario where there wouldn't be such an agreement in place.

To FETCO, when you put out communications against the bill, did you know that the maintenance of activities process was meant to maintain these 911 services? There was some reaction from the public, but I would like you to explain that particular scenario that I went through and researched and the importance that 911 services will still continue.