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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, committee. We'll resume the second hour this morning by welcoming Minister O'Regan to the committee to speak to Bill C-58.

Mr. Minister, you have with you Sandra Hassan, deputy minister, and Zia Proulx.

Mr. O'Regan, you have the floor for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

That concludes the first hour of witness testimony on Bill C-58.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

We'll suspend for two minutes while we change over. The minister is up next.

We're suspended.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the witnesses coming forward and giving us some insight into what I feel will be historic changes to labour relations.

Subclause 6(1) of Bill C-58 would require that, within 15 days after notice of bargaining collectively has been given, an employer and the union must enter into a maintenance of activities agreement outlining the activities that need to be maintained during the work stoppage. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of that measure?

I'll direct that to Ms. Payne.

[Denis Bolduc]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

After reading the bill, particularly that proposed clause, I used the word “recipe” in my presentation, since this subsection would be tantamount to giving an employer who plans to lock out its employees a recipe to avoid being accused of using replacement workers as defined in the bill. Indeed, an employer who intends to lock out its workers in its contingency plan to force them to accept what they consider unacceptable could decide, based on this clause, to hire one or two subcontractors before sending its notice to bargain. According to the terms of the bill, the employees of that subcontractor would not be considered scabs, even if they performed the tasks assigned to the workers or similar tasks. At least that's our understanding of that clause. Certainly, if an employer applies this provision and uses this trick or recipe, the consequence is that the dispute will last a long time. The employer will be able to prolong the dispute, since there will be people performing the duties of the workers it has locked out.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Payne, Mr. Aylward and Mr. Bolduc, thank you very much for being with us today.

Mr. Bolduc, I'm pleased to meet you today. I'm the daughter of a proud member of the United Steelworkers Local 5778 on the North Shore. My father was heavily involved in the union and I fully understand the struggle you're waging. These are the deceased United Steelworkers Local 5778 members who also paved the way for progress on the Act respecting Occupational Health and Safety in Quebec. The work of unions is very important, and we have to recognize that.

You talked about a measure that's provided for in the current bill, the possibility of hiring subcontractors who could do the work during a strike or lockout. I also saw that when I read the new clause 94(5) that Bill C‑58 would add. Can you tell us what consequences the use of subcontractors could have on the duration and resolution of a labour dispute, as well as on the employer's resolve and desire to sit down at the bargaining table?

[Denis Bolduc, General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and hon. committee members.

Thank you for giving the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the FTQ, the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑58. The FTQ represents 600,000 workers in Quebec across all sectors, including some federally regulated businesses. We have members who work in ports, telecommunications, cable, airports and rail, among others. Currently, we have two groups that are locked out in federally regulated businesses: Videotron employees in Gatineau, very close to here, and the longshoremen at the Port of Quebec, who have been locked out for 18 months.

The FTQ applauds the current government's decision to introduce a bill to prohibit the use of scabs in the event of a dispute, be it a lockout or a strike. For years, and I would even say a few decades, the central labour body has been calling for this kind of legislation. I would also say that it's one thing to introduce a bill, but it's another thing to get it passed. However, we must pass this bill very quickly, because we've been waiting for it for a long time. It must be passed during the current Parliament, and to that end, the FTQ is asking all parliamentarians from all political parties in the House of Commons to lend a hand.

Bill C‑58 has been a long time coming for the FTQ. It will improve the collective bargaining process, because scabs are being used far too often. They undermine the settlement of collective agreements by prolonging disputes. That's a proven fact. Bill C‑58 restrikes a certain balance of power between workers and employers. I'd say that the bill gives real meaning to the fundamental right of association and strike, which is recognized and has been recognized in recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

Yes, we at the FTQ are happy. In December 2022, we submitted a brief as part of the consultation conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada. In it, we addressed our general requests for the introduction of a bill. Now that the bill is being studied, it's most important that Parliament be able to pass it quickly. In that regard, I will propose the amendments that are most important to us.

First, the bill seeks to protect workers in federally regulated industries from the use of scabs during a strike or lockout. We find it hard to understand why employees of the federal public service and employees of Parliament are excluded from the bill in its current form. They should be protected like all other workers. It may have been an oversight or a mistake, but it can easily be corrected.

Second, we're concerned about the proposed new clause 94(5) of the Canada Labour Code. Reading that paragraph, we could conclude that just before starting negotiations, an employer can call on subcontractors and that the employees of that subcontractor can perform the duties of workers who are locked out or on strike, or perform similar tasks. It makes no sense to us. In the text of the bill, it would be a bit like giving an employer planning a lockout a recipe for using scabs without them being considered scabs within the meaning of the act. This clause is of great concern to us. We believe it should simply be removed from the bill.

Third, with respect to the act coming into force, there is an 18-month period between the day it receives royal assent and its effective date. We believe that the new act should come into force as soon as it receives royal assent, since it doesn't require the implementation of a complex organizational structure and, in our view, there's no reason for an 18-month delay.

I'm available to answer your questions.

Thank you again.

[Chris Aylward, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is one of the largest unions in the country, representing over 260,000 workers. Of these members, several thousand work in the federally regulated private sector and will be directly impacted by BillC-58. These members work at airports, military bases, for courier companies, at ports, harbours, for indigenous governance organizations, and in the three territories.

For example, I've just returned from British Columbia, where our members, who work for IMP Aerospace repairing search and rescue helicopters, and who are governed under the Canada Labour Code, are currently at the bargaining table.

Progressive and effective legislation to ban replacement workers has been a long-standing demand of trade unions across the country. PSAC was pleased to see the introduction of BillC-58. It's almost there.

We are proposing four simple changes that will make this legislation truly effective in levelling the playing field and ensuring free and collective bargaining for all workers governed in the sector.

First, the use of replacement workers drags out labour disputes and divides communities, pitting workers against each other. PSAC members experienced this recently during the Iqaluit Housing Authority strike. Workers were on the picket line for over four months, while their employer brought in replacement workers to do their jobs, instead of sitting down and negotiating with them at the bargaining table.

This playing field is only levelled if the prohibition on the use of scab labour is complete. Bill C-58, as currently written, leaves many avenues open for employers to bring in others to do the work of striking employees, which is not in keeping with the goals of the legislation. We recommend that the bill be amended to increase the scope of prohibitions on performing struck work.

Second, as written, the legislative changes don't come into effect until well past the next election. This is unacceptable, and it should be possible to bring the maintenance of activities proposals into effect within 90 days of royal assent, and no longer than nine months for the anti-scab provisions.

Third, the language in the bill around the use of dependent contractors is confusing. The legislation must explicitly specify that dependent contractors, who are employees of the bargaining unit, cannot perform struck work.

Finally, the time frame for decision-making regarding essential services is too long. The Supreme Court has clarified that essential services should not hinder or delay a worker's right to strike. The proposed 90-day time limit for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to conduct hearings and render decisions in the event of a dispute between unions and employers over essential services is simply too long.

These are our four proposed changes. Remove the exemptions on who can perform struck work. Shorten the time frame until the act comes into force. Specify that dependent contractors cannot perform struck work. Reduce the time for decision-making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board for essential services agreements.

This will make the Canada Labour Code a robust, fair and future-proof piece of legislation that will bring balance to the workplace.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn't comment that the Canada Labour Code only regulates the working conditions of about a million workers in this country. It is imperative that anti-scab laws be implemented across the entire country. While this body doesn't have the power to make such rules for the provinces, you do have the power—and I do ask you to use it—to amend the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act, and to ensure that scab labour is not used to subvert bargaining for the 400,000-plus workers employed by the government and its Crown corporations and agencies.

In fact, when I leave this room, I'll be heading directly to a picket line for the staff of our non-public funds. These workers provide critical supports to Canada's armed forces. They've been on strike for more than two months, because their employer—an agency of the federal government—has refused to return to the bargaining table with a wage offer that shows these workers respect and, instead, is spending funds hiring replacement workers to do their jobs. It is a glaring example of why this legislation is needed, and why it needs to be expanded.

Thank you for your time. I'll look forward to your questions.

[Lana Payne, National President, Unifor]

Thank you very much.

Honourable members of the committee, I'm here today as president of Unifor, representing 315,000 workers across this country, including almost 70,000 in the federally regulated private sector, such as air, road, rail and marine as well as telecommunications and media.

I want to thank you sincerely for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-58 and the urgent need for anti-scab legislation in Canada. I also want to sincerely thank MPs of all political parties in the House of Commons who unanimously voted in favour of the legislation at second reading. Now we need to get the job done.

Peaceful labour relations in Canada, and indeed all over the world, rely on the principles of fair and free collective bargaining. These principles have improved the living and working conditions for Canadian workers over many decades. No country has achieved shared progress and prosperity for working people without strong unions and strong collective bargaining laws. Our ability to bargain in a framework that truly respects the voice and power of working people has historically been the only way to raise standards for all workers, unionized or not.

Our union bargains a collective agreement practically every day of the week in Canada, as do all other unions. The majority of those negotiations are concluded without a labour dispute. In rare cases of labour disputes, many employers engage respectfully in the process, including by refusing to use scabs. Of course, both sides engage in hard bargaining. That is, after all, part of the process. But still we have employers who refuse to respect the rights of workers in Canada and who behave as if workers do not have constitutional rights. This is what brings me to the important need for Bill C-58 to be adopted as law as quickly as possible.

I have a current example to raise with you involving an employer who mostly operates in the federal jurisdiction, but this case involves a small group of workers under a provincial certification. On February 27, the first day of a perfectly legal strike, Autoport, a subsidiary of the very profitable CN Rail, brought replacement workers across the picket line, aggressively undermining the fundamental right to strike of 239 Unifor members in Nova Scotia. The scabs are still doing the jobs of our members today, including 71-year-old Heather Wildsmith, who has worked at Autoport since 2015. She is a mom and a grandmother with five beautiful grandchildren. She works hard every single day and takes great pride in her work.

While at the bargaining table with us and a federal conciliator, CN was hiring and training scabs to do our members' jobs. This is not fair and free collective bargaining.

CN is also a member of FETCO, which has vocally and actively lobbied against not just this legislation but also workers' right to strike in Canada. Suffice it to say that their recommendations, which you will likely hear, would render this legislation, and indeed collective bargaining rights for workers, completely meaningless.

Here I want to be very clear: The path proposed by FETCO leads to chaos, make no mistake about that. It will force working people and their unions to resort to more direct methods to enforce our collective rights, causing major challenges for employers, labour peace, workers and governments alike. It will not lead to the labour peace that they suggest it will. Indeed, it will lead to the exact opposite.

Legislation to ban replacement workers is needed because the use, and the threat of the use, of scab labour during disputes undermines workers' constitutionally protected right to collectively bargain; undermines our constitutional right to strike; prolongs labour disputes six times longer when replacement workers are used; removes the economic pressure that workers have in negotiating with employers; increases conflict and violence on picket lines; jeopardizes workplace safety; destabilizes normalized labour relations; and creates, I would add, poisonous and toxic workplaces after the fact.

It also removes incentives for employers to negotiate and settle fair contracts where they should be settled—at a bargaining table. Voting for Bill C-58 is, in Unifor's opinion, the very least that elected officials can do.

I thank you again for the full support you gave this legislation at second reading. It modernizes Canada's labour relations system to reflect the current social and economic context of our times, where increased corporate power and wealth require an effective counter-balance.

Quebec and British Columbia, as you know, have similar laws, and have had them for many years. Manitoba has just announced that it will be doing so as well.

Bill C-58 must pass and be implemented without delay—not 18 months from now, and not a year from now.

Thank you very much for hearing from me today. I'll be very happy to take any questions you may have.

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

Good morning, committee members. I call the meeting to order. The clerk has advised that we do have a quorum.

Those appearing virtually have been sound-tested. We still have one minor issue with a witness, but we'll see how it goes.

Welcome to meeting number 105 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. People are attending in person and virtually using Zoom.

You have the option to speak in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation services are available by using the headsets and selecting the language of your choice. If you're appearing virtually, click on the globe icon on the bottom of your Surface, and choose the language of your choice. If there is a breakdown in interpretation services, please get my attention. If you're in the room, raise your hand. If you're appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” function. We will suspend while it is being corrected.

For the protection of our interpreters, I would also like to remind those appearing in the room to please keep earpieces away from the microphones because it does cause popping and can lead to hearing issues for our translators.

Please direct all comments through the chair.

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

Before I recognize the witnesses, I will mention that we have three new members joining us for Bill C-58: Madame Vignola, Mr. Boulerice and Mr. Sheehan.

Welcome to the committee.

On our first panel, we have, from Unifor, Lana Payne, national president; and from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Chris Aylward, national president; Liam McCarthy, director, negotiations and programs branch; and Daniel Fisher, acting director. Appearing virtually, from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, we have Mr. Bolduc, general secretary.

We'll begin with five-minute opening statements. Mr. Aylward will be doing it on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

We'll begin with Unifor and Lana Payne for five minutes, please.

Labour

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard loud and clear from unionized workers in my riding about how excited they are about the government's bill to ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. Yesterday marked another significant step in the right direction as Bill C-58 received unanimous support in the House. Workers know that our Liberal government stands with them, because the best deals and the most powerful paycheques are made at the bargaining table.

Will the Prime Minister update the House on progress on this historic legislation to ban replacement workers?

Canada Labour Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:18 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-58.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 26 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.

Labour

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, we are banning replacement workers. We are banning replacement workers because we believe in collective bargaining. We are banning replacement workers because the best deals are made at the table, bigger paycheques are negotiated at the table, and better labour relations and long-term stability are created at the table. Let us keep that bargaining table free and fair with the full support of every MP in the House.

With unanimous consent, let us vote to move Bill C-58. Let us make some history. Let us ban replacement workers.

Canada Labour Code

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-58 regarding labour issues in Canada. In both my former professional role as a teacher and my volunteer role as a hospital board member, I have dealt with labour strife over those years.

The issue of replacement workers was always uppermost in the minds of both my colleagues in teaching and our community health care workers. One of my fellow hospital board members was Tony Silbernagel. He sadly passed away just a few months ago, but as an astute businessman and community volunteer, Tony taught me so much about compassion within our community.

There have been a number of dear friends over the past couple of months who have also passed away. Erhard Poggemiller was the former mayor of Kerrobert, Saskatchewan. Once he moved to Alberta, he was a councillor in Didsbury up until the last election. His sudden passing was a shock to us all, but I know how committed he too was to health care in Saskatchewan.

Two other dear friends, who served as Red Deer city councillors, passed away during the Christmas holidays. My childhood friend, Michael Dawe, was a treasured member of the city of Red Deer. As a historian and archivist, there was no one better. His former colleague, Frank Wong, also passed away during this time. Another icon of our community and former Red Deer alderman was Jack Donald. His philanthropy and care for our community were something that will be remembered forever.

Communities have many leaders. Friends like Dave Brown, Winnie MacFayden and Jean Klepper did so much for our central Alberta communities. Whether in sports or agriculture, they were also leaders. Sadly, within my family, we just dealt with the passing of my wife's brother, Charles Moore. Charlie was one of the founders of then-premier Lougheed's dream of rural gasification throughout Alberta. He received lifetime achievement awards from the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops and the Alberta Association of Agricultural Societies for his unwavering commitment to community. He was also the recipient of at least five community, provincial and national medals and citations. It was all for the community, for each and every one of these dear friends who have recently passed away.

My experiences with labour disruptions started in the late sixties, when I chose to remain at home while my family enjoyed a trip to California so that I could look after the farm and complete a correspondence course over the summer. I had just received all of my lessons when a postal strike started. It was more than three weeks later that I was finally able to send any lessons up to Edmonton to get marked. I received the input from the instructors only a couple of days before I had to write the final exams. Postal strikes take their toll.

Coming from an agricultural community and having seen the effects of workplace actions, either at the ports or with the railroad, I am well aware of the costs that exist when Canada's supply chain is disrupted. This legislation looks at some of these issues, but there must be true certainty, especially now, as we look for solutions to get our country's economy back on track. It is with those thoughts in mind that I would like to address some of the key points of this legislation. With all of it, though, there is the underpinning of the responsibility of a federal government to ensure that everything in this country runs smoothly.

The buck stops at the cabinet table. We may look at a labour minister as being the one with the responsibility to make these tough decisions, but if it does not have strong input from the ministers of other critical infrastructure, such as agriculture and natural resources, and from other regional ministers, the government never gets the true picture of the pain that these labour disruptions actually cause to the country. That is also why it is important for us, as legislators, to be able to deal with these issues. I wonder if it should be a common goal for all of us to ensure that cabinet can quickly deal with these issues, especially when back-to-work legislation can be interrupted by something as simple as the House not sitting.

I have been on both sides of the table when it comes to negotiations. It is never easy, but having done so, I am well aware of the strategies that are involved with labour issues. The reality is, either as a teacher and a member of the Alberta Teachers Association at the time, or as a hospital board representative, the real decision-makers were beyond my reach. Negotiators do what they feel is in the best interest of negotiations, not necessarily the best interest of members. This is a harsh reality, but it is in fact true.

However, that does not mean workers, companies and businesses cannot find common ground. If one looks at the results of many negotiations, once the threat of back-to-work legislation becomes evident, it is amazing how quickly two sides can get together. Unions would argue, and perhaps they are right, that is for us to see, that this type of legislation helps on the other side as well.

When they do, of course, there is a sense of pride and accomplishment if it is managed to be done without government intervention. That is the way it should be. As government, we should find ways to ensure that is the rule and not the exception. A fair and logical approach for replacement workers, one hopes, would make negotiations more meaningful.

This bill was tabled in November 2021, and we are now here, in February 2024, debating it. The Liberal-NDP coalition sure likes to take its time with the legislation it tables for debate. Nevertheless, moving on, Bill C-58 would do two major things. First, it would ban replacement workers in federally regulated industries, such as banking, airports and telecommunications, but it does not ban them in the federal public service.

Second, Bill C-58 would amend the maintenance of the activities process to encourage not only quicker agreements between employers and trade unions on what activities should be maintained in the case of a strike or lockout, but also faster decision-making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board in this connection. The provision of Bill C-58 would only apply to federally regulated workers. If enacted, the provision of Bill C-58 would enter into force 18 months after royal assent has been received.

One of the concerns with rail and port disruptions in agriculture is that any delays for a producer getting their product to market has a serious impact on their cash flow. In fact, it can be days or weeks of obstruction for farmers, and that ripple effect could last the entire season. When it comes to the movement of goods, it is not just the issue of the days workers do not show up. All the way down the supply chain, affected businesses need to adjust their schedules. It can sometimes be weeks to get the system running smoothly again.

Everyone deserves to have a safe workplace, a beneficial relationship with their employer that is built on a foundation of trust and goodwill. Just the same, businesses need to be able to operate and meet their clients' demands in a manner that allows them to continue to operate.

My concerns with this bill, Bill C-58, have nothing to do with workers' rights to organize or to engage in collective bargaining, because Canadian workers undoubtedly have those rights. However, labour legislation is always controversial in Canada. I want to be clear. There is a big difference between the boots on the ground and the suits in the union offices. The agendas are not always aligned. Conservatives believe that the government should work with unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to develop dispute settlement mechanisms and to encourage their use to avoid or to minimize disruptions to services in Canada.

Of course, the Liberal government, ironically, has put a lot of money into contract workers and replacement workers. It is basically the same type of thing. GC Strategies, a two-person IT company that does no actual IT work, was paid nearly $20 million for ArriveCAN. That money could have been spent much more wisely.

In conclusion, I have concerns about the impact and the reach of this legislation. I have concerns about whether this bill draws the right balance between employer and employee. There are mixed signals from the Liberal government. On one hand, it speaks glowingly about banning the use of replacement workers but on the other hand, it is investing heavily in consultants.

As Canada rebuilds from the pandemic, from the imposed mandates and the economic consequences of undisciplined spending, it is vital that we rebuild our economy and workforce with sound labour policies.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we stand at the height of transformative change in the landscape of Canadian labour law. With the introduction of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, we are ushering in a new era of labour relations that would place the principles of fairness, safety and economic stability at the forefront of our national workforce policy.

At its core, Bill C-58 seeks to reinforce the sanctity of the collective bargaining process by banning the use of replacement workers during strikes or lockouts. This critical legislation would mandate that employers in federally regulated sectors cannot hire new employees or managers after a notice to bargain collectively is given, or contractors to perform the work of striking or locked out employees. This move would be not merely a legislative action but also a profound statement of our collective belief in the power and importance of genuine negotiation between employers and unions.

Before I go further into the details of the legislation, let me recognize the important role and success of trade unions. Trade unions have been instrumental in shaping the economic landscape of developed countries, including Canada, playing an important role in their development into prosperous economies with a high quality of life for workers.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as industrialization accelerated, trade unions emerged as key players in advocating for workers' rights, leading to significant labour reforms. They fought for fair wages, reasonable working hours and safer working conditions, contributing to the growth of a middle class that fuelled consumer spending and economic expansion. The labour movement led to the establishment of minimum wage laws and overtime pay, and to the prohibition of child labour, among other labour protections. Trade unions were central to securing workers' benefits such as health care, unemployment insurance and pension plans, which are cornerstones of the country's social safety net.

These achievements not only improved the quality of life for workers but also stabilized the workforce, reducing labour disputes and fostering a more productive economy. Moreover, trade unions have played a critical role in advocating for policies that benefit the wider community, such as public education and health care, contributing to the social and economic well-being of the broader population. Their ongoing efforts to ensure fair employment practices and equitable economic growth continue to support the high standard of living in Canada.

Trade unions remain highly relevant in Canada today as they continue to address the evolving challenges faced by workers in a rapidly changing economy. In the era of globalization, technological advancements and shifting labour markets, unions play a critical role in advocating for fair wages, job security and workers' rights amid increasing automation and the gig economy. They provide a necessary counterbalance to corporate power, ensuring that economic growth benefits all layers of society, not just the top echelons.

Let me also touch upon the importance of collective bargaining and why unions are still relevant today. Collective bargaining and negotiations between employers and unions are fundamental mechanisms that ensure a balanced and fair relationship in the workplace, with profound implications for both the economy and the quality of life of workers. This process allows unions to negotiate on behalf of their members for better wages, benefits, working conditions and job security, reflecting the collective interests and needs of the workforce.

By providing a structured framework for dialogue, collective bargaining helps prevent labour disputes and fosters a cooperative environment where both parties can work towards mutually beneficial solutions. The importance of collective bargaining extends beyond individual workplaces, contributing to broader economic stability and growth. It helps in setting industry-wide standards that can elevate living conditions and reduce income inequality. Furthermore, by giving workers a voice in their employment conditions, collective bargaining empowers them, promoting workplace democracy and participation.

In today's rapidly changing labour market, characterized by the rise of precarious employment and the gig economy, collective bargaining remains highly relevant. It adapts to new challenges, such as remote work arrangements and the need for continuous skills development, which would ensure that workers are protected and fairly compensated in the face of technological advancements and global competition. Through collective action and negotiation, trade unions have been key to balancing economic development with social equity, making them fundamental to the prosperity and the high quality of life enjoyed in Canada.

While Bill C-58 would mandate that employers cannot hire new employees after a notice to bargain collectively is given, it smartly delineates two critical exceptions to this rule to ensure that essential services and public safety are not compromised. Employers would be permitted to use replacement workers only when necessary to prevent threats to life, health or safety; to avoid serious damage to property or premises; or to avert significant environmental harm. Furthermore, it would allow employees in the bargaining unit to work during a full strike or lockout if it is vital to prevent immediate and serious danger to public health and safety. The bill underscores the importance of staying at the bargaining table and fostering an environment where disputes can be resolved through dialogue and mutual respect, rather than through adversarial and potentially harmful practices.

The prohibition against the use of replacement workers would be a significant step toward levelling the playing field during labour disputes. Moreover, the bill introduces a more structured and predictable framework for maintaining activities during strikes or lockouts. It would mandate that employers and unions must collaborate to determine what essential work must continue, with clear deadlines for reaching an agreement. This approach would not only minimize disruptions but also emphasize the collective responsibility of both parties to safeguard the public interest.

Economically, Bill C-58 is poised to instill greater stability and certainty across industries. By discouraging protracted disputes and fostering healthier labour relations, it would create a more attractive environment for business and investment. The certainty and predictiveness this legislation would bring to labour relations would be invaluable for our national economy, ensuring that Canada would remain competitive on the global stage.

In conclusion, Bill C-58 represents a bold step forward in our journey toward a more equitable, safe and prosperous labour market. It would reinforce the right to strike as a fundamental aspect of a healthy workforce, address the inefficiencies in the current system and set a new standard for labour relations in Canada. As we debate and discuss this landmark legislation, let us remember the profound impact it would have on the lives of Canadian workers, the health of our industries and the overall well-being of our nation.