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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I'll be supporting the amendment moved by the government representatives. The original version of the motion is really a stalling tactic to delay the discussion on the anti‑scab bill and the adoption of the bill. The committee has already scheduled a study on the important issue of housing for June. That seems reasonable. We must also take into account the comments made by the witnesses here today and at the previous meeting. They said that we must work diligently. However, given the proposed dates, the Conservative motion would delay the study of Bill C‑58, which we in the NDP consider unacceptable.

However, I would like to move a subamendment. The Liberal amendment before us contains a discrepancy between the English and French versions. In the French version, the Governor of the Bank of Canada is invited, but in the English version, he simply isn't mentioned. I would like to move a subamendment to make sure that the two versions match and that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is invited.

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

Thank you.

Bill C-58 could be said to eclipse Bill C-377 and Bill C-525—pun intended. I really appreciate that.

Ryan, you mentioned the different transportation networks that you wanted to talk about. I'm also on the trade committee. At the trade committee, the longshore people mentioned that they kept using replacement workers and whatnot, and it was really hard to get the employer at the table. This was their testimony. Quite frankly, they felt it prolonged what happened out west, and it shouldn't have.

Would you not agree that the best deals are done at the table, and that we ought to get people at the table consistently? This longshoreman—it was “man” at the time—said they would have to present, and the union would present to the opposite, and they couldn't make decisions because they weren't the employer either. They were representatives. They'd have to go back. It was delaying things forever.

Do you have any comments about that?

[Ryan Greer, Vice President, Public Affairs and National Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, committee members, for having me here today on behalf of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

Manufacturing generates 10% of Canada's GDP, produces nearly two-thirds of Canada’s value-added exports and employs 1.8 million people in high-paying jobs across the country. It is important that the views of manufacturers are reflected in your deliberations and decisions regarding Bill C-58.

Up front, I want to note that my remarks will be focused on how this bill will impact manufacturers' reliance on railways and ports—critical enablers of Canada’s industrial economy. Their importance of course extends beyond the manufacturing sector. Ports and railways are the tangible connections that facilitate the functioning of our economy and the well-being of Canadians.

CME opposes Bill C-58. Many of our concerns with banning replacement workers in federally regulated industries are the same concerns that have been expressed by Parliament over the last decade and a half when it has voted against several similar initiatives.

Banning replacement workers in federally regulated industries may disrupt the delicate balance that exists in Canada’s collective bargaining system. The government's own discussion paper on this legislation stated that most studies on prohibiting replacement workers showed that they resulted in more frequent strikes and lockouts.

More labour disruptions will negatively impact small, medium and large manufacturers that rely on Canada’s railways and ports to access critical inputs and to get their goods to Canadian consumers and global customers.

Collective bargaining is an important part of a fair and functioning economy. However, there is a fundamental difference between a work stoppage at a port or railway and most other public or private organizations. The interconnected nature of modern manufacturing and logistics means that disruptions in these parts of the supply chain reverberate through the entire economy. It is essential that supply chains continue to function even during times of collective bargaining.

When labour action stops the movement of goods, it imposes harm on manufacturers in communities that are often hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away. This is neither fair nor functioning. It is imperative that the well-being of those businesses, their workers and their families also be taken into account in your study of this bill.

While CME does not support the legislation, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in your work in the hope that this committee will adopt amendments to the bill that would minimize its harm to manufacturers, the broader economy and Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner.

CME recommends that this bill include a provision that grants authority to the Governor in Council to refer labour disputes in critical supply chain sectors to binding arbitration if parties cannot reach a negotiated agreement through collective bargaining.

Given the likelihood that the legislation will increase supply chain disruptions, it is appropriate to provide the federal government with the tools necessary to facilitate a resolution to disputes when they harm the national interest.

Additionally, we believe there are other amendments that could be made to the bill to further minimize supply chain uncertainty.

We recommend that proposed subsection 94(7) of the legislation be expanded to allow an employer to use a prohibited worker when there is an imminent or serious threat to the national interest or national economic security.

We also recommend that section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code be expanded to prevent imminent harm to the national interest or national economic security.

Again, our preference is that the legislation does not proceed. However, given the likelihood that it will, we urge you to seriously consider amendments that will support the integrity and resilience of Canada’s supply chains.

Last fall, Minister O’Regan announced a review process under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code to examine the structural issues underlying the recent longshoring dispute at our west coast ports, as well as some similar disputes. He had this to say:

Canada is a reliable trading partner to the world. That is a good thing for every employer and worker in this country. But our credibility depends on the stable operation of our supply chains. We must do everything we can to preserve that stability.

It is in that spirt CME is asking this committee to take steps to help preserve Canada’s supply chain credibility and stability. Canadian manufacturers are depending on it.

Thanks for having us here, and I look forward to your questions.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

The Canadian Labour Congress is Canada's largest central labour body. We represent over 55 different unions and over three million workers in every sector and in every industry from coast to coast.

The CLC strongly supports Bill C-58 and urges the committee to strengthen the bill and to report the bill back to the House for third reading as quickly as possible.

In my over 30 years as a union activist, I have walked on countless picket lines in every part of this country. I have walked in the heat, the cold, the rain and the middle of the night with workers right across this country. I've walked with them on day one, and I've walked with them on day 123 of their strike or lockout.

Let's be clear. The decision to walk a picket line is never an easy decision for a worker to make. These are kitchen table conversations that workers have with their families. Can I afford the meagre offer the employer is putting forward? Worse, can I afford the takeaways that the employer has tabled in the concessions it is demanding from me, or am I prepared to forgo a paycheque and risk absolutely everything that I have built up with this employer in order to demand a fair deal by walking a picket line?

No worker wants to walk a picket line. What they want is a fair deal that's reached at a bargaining table with good conversations happening between the parties. Let's be clear. At times, it's not the worker's choice to be walking a picket line or not. Rather, it is the employer who chooses to lock out workers and then rub salt in the wound by hiring scab labour. That employer is sending workers one message, and it's this: If you want to see your jobs and your wages again, you had better back down and accept the offer that we are putting forward.

When employers have scabs in their back pocket, they don't need to come to the table to bargain fairly. They don't need to be serious about reaching a collective agreement. Workers, on the other hand, risk absolutely everything when they walk that picket line because—let's be honest here—some employers don't ever intend to get to a fair collective agreement. They use a lockout, or they push workers into a strike position by tabling massive concessions or to try to get rid of union representation in their workplace.

My co-worker from many years ago, Judy Starr, had worked at Loblaws for many years when our very financially sound employer demanded a reduction to our wages and benefits way back in 1987. Judy was a single parent of three kids living in social housing, and she knew that walking a picket line meant no regular paycheque for weeks to come. She also knew that not walking that picket line would mean an even harder time for her family to try to make ends meet. She rallied her co-workers—including me—to take on the employer's demands for concessions by walking that picket line, and our employer repaid workers like Judy by replacing her with scabs on day number one.

The use of scabs in that strike meant that strike dragged on for 124 days. That was 124 days where those workers had no paycheque while the employer continued doing business as usual. We workers who had diligently worked for that employer were made to walk a picket line just to keep what we had. It wasn't to make gains in that contract; it was to keep what we had.

Once the strike started, it was very clear that this was more than just a dispute about reaching a new collective agreement. It was about the very right of these workers to be able to have a voice at our workplace and to continue to be represented by a union.

For decades, the CLC has urged government to pass anti-scab legislation, and I want to commend the NDP and the Liberal government for working together to finally make this a reality. We have seen that this bill has unanimous support, and there is no excuse for delaying in adopting and bringing this legislation into force. Eighteen months is unnecessarily long, and it's far too long to be bringing this bill into effect.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

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

Good afternoon, committee members.

Welcome to meeting number 106 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 have the option of appearing virtually or in the room. Witnesses and committee members are appearing in person this afternoon.

You have the option of choosing to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. I wish to advise you to keep your earpiece away from the mic to protect the interpreters. If there is a loss of interpretation service, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while it is being clarified.

I remind members that all comments must be addressed through the chair. To do that, simply raise your hand in the room to get my attention, and I will recognize you.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 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 today's meeting, we'll be hearing from representatives of two organizations at their request. A third organization was invited to appear, but asked to be rescheduled to a meeting later in April, so that meeting will have four organizations on the panel. I did agree to that request.

Today, from the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president; Chris Roberts, director, social and economic policy department; and from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, we have Ryan Greer, vice-president, public affairs and national policy.

Each group will have five minutes for an opening statement.

Ms. Bruske, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Sandra Hassan]

Mr. Boulerice, I would reply that the workers you are talking about are not subject to part I of the Canada Labour Code. However, Bill C‑58 aims to amend that part. Unfortunately, these workers are not under our jurisdiction.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Minister O'Regan, thank you for coming.

I have to say that I am virtual, but I am just amazed and dumbfounded when I listen to the Conservative MPs today with this new-found concern for Canadian unions and the working class. It's just amazing. It's a 180° turnaround. They brought forth Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were arguably two of the biggest union-busting bills that we've seen in our history, and we reversed them.

Minister, I want to congratulate you for Bill C-58. It's progressive. It's going to move our country forward. It's historic legislation that's going to help Canadian workers get powerful paycheques.

As we've seen in the House and here in this committee—again, disappointingly so—the Conservative MPs do not want to talk about Bill C-58.

We know what the Leader of the Opposition is about, and what he did was support anti-labour bills. We know that he also supports American-style right-to-work legislation.

Minister, I want you to share with me why you think the Conservative MPs today do not want to talk about Bill C-58.

Thank you.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate it, because I think we're here to protect working class families. I believe the minister, being from Newfoundland, actually has a deep connection to the people. I believe that. I came from New Brunswick last week, and the Valley Food Bank. Their numbers, in the last year, have tripled. Do you know who the demographic is? It's the working class. It's the people who you're here to fight for in Bill C-58.

The question I would ask you, Minister, is this: as the Minister of Labour, what do you think are the two reasons people go to work?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Ferreri, we're here to discuss Bill C-58.

You may continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Ferreri, please keep it to the relevancy of Bill C-58.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Could we get back to the relevance, please? We're talking about Bill C-58.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd just like to say, by way of introduction, that I'm somewhat taken aback by the comments of my Conservative colleagues today on this committee. They suddenly seem to be very concerned about the fate of the federal public service and public service workers. Yet this is not how I remember Mr. Stephen Harper's regime when the Conservatives were in power.

That said, Minister, thank you very much for appearing before us today.

You said in your introduction that this was a purely Liberal bill. I'd just like to add that there is a bit of NDP in there, since it was a condition of the agreement we negotiated with your minority government.

I must also underscore the fact that we had frank and honest discussions on the development of Bill C‑58. There's obviously room for improvement, and there are things we're going to want to improve and correct along the way. However, you do have experience, Minister, as you've seen labour disputes in federally regulated sectors over the past few years.

By way of introduction, I'd like you to briefly explain the impact of anti-scab legislation at the bargaining table when it comes to respecting the rights of workers in federally regulated sectors.

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

Thank you for that.

Again, with the past private members' bills that were about banning replacement workers, how is the legislation different? How was the process different for Bill C-58?

Can you also expand on why it is that we need time to get this right and how much time we have proposed to make sure that, when it comes into force, it's done correctly? Could you touch on that, too?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

We had extensive consultations. I attended them all, or at least the two main ones that we had. We even went to the trouble of making sure that we had the seating arrangements rights. I didn't want a big table with labour on one side, employers on the other and government on another. We tried to get more creative about it and had them interspersed so people realized that we were all in this together.

As you know, when one union head was berating employers for past behaviour, those employers were sitting right next to him. It was really important that we arrived at those things together. The draft legislation, the legislation itself, and what we're talking about here with Bill C-58 is a direct result of it.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister, and the deputy and Ms. Proulx, for being here.

Minister, in the earlier panel, Lana Payne talked about a 71-year-old grandmother who's been replaced. She has been replaced for about a month right now. She has children and grandchildren. Obviously, that was very concerning.

Minister, can you describe how Bill C-58 will help create some fairness and some balance and help people like that 71-year-old grandmother who is currently being replaced by replacement workers?