Bill C-58

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) amend the scope of the prohibition relating to replacement workers by removing the requirement of demonstrating a purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity, by adding persons whose services must not be used during legal strikes and lockouts and by providing certain exceptions;
(b) prohibit employers from using, during a legal strike or lockout intended to involve the cessation of work by all employees in a bargaining unit, the services of an employee in that unit, subject to certain exceptions;
(c) make the contravention by employers of either of those prohibitions an offence punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 per day;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing an administrative monetary penalties scheme for the purpose of promoting compliance with those prohibitions; and
(e) amend the maintenance of activities process in order to, among other things, encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout, encourage faster decision making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when parties are unable to agree and reduce the need for the Minister of Labour to make referrals to the Board.

Canada Labour Code

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join in the debate in the House on a matter of great significance for our workforce and the future of collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector.

Bill C-58 is an essential piece of legislation that seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations, 2012. At the core of Bill C-58 is the commitment to create a fair, collective bargaining process by introducing a ban on the use of replacement workers, commonly known as scabs, during strikes or lockouts.

The implications of this legislation are far-reaching, touching the core of the relationship between employers and workers during labour disputes. What makes Bill C-58 particularly noteworthy is the extensive collaboration with the labour movement, exemplified by the dedicated work of organizations such as the Durham Regional Labour Council in my riding. The involvement of these councils, representing the interests and concerns of workers, has been instrumental in shaping the provisions of this bill. The Durham Regional Labour Council, along with other labour organizations, has a long history of being a vocal advocate for fair treatment of workers and the regulation of replacement workers.

Through a series of consultations, discussions and negotiations, the labour movement has played a crucial role in influencing the content and scope of Bill C-58. The goal has been to strike a balance between the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining and the operational needs of employers, especially during critical periods of labour disputes. This collaborative process has strengthened the bill significantly, demonstrating what can be achieved when diverse voices, especially those representing the labour movement, actively engage in the legislative process. The provisions within this bill reflect a balanced approach, acknowledging the rights and responsibilities of both workers and employers.

As Teamsters Canada president, François Laporte, put it, “This is a big step forward for workers.” Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, which represents the thousands of skilled tradespeople at GM's Oshawa assembly plant, said, “This legislation is a step toward levelling the playing field. It will be good for the economy and good for labour relations”. To quote our labour minister, “Our economy depends on employers and workers negotiating an agreement at the table”. That is what this legislation does. It provides a framework such that employers, along with workers and their unions, will be able to negotiate better deals at the table.

The legislation is a response to the acknowledgement that the right to strike can be undermined when employers resort to the use of replacement workers, perpetuating imbalances between workers and employers. The ban proposed in this bill would be a crucial step toward fostering a healthier workplace and strengthening the rights of employees in federally regulated private sectors by prohibiting employers from using new hires or contractors to perform the work of unionized employees who are on strike or locked out. Furthermore, it would prevent employers from allowing employees in a bargaining unit to work during a full strike affecting the entire unit. The ban would not be absolute, but it is carefully crafted to allow certain exceptions.

The Government of Canada respects the right to strike, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, all governments also have a responsibility to make sure strikes and lockouts do not risk the health and safety of the public. To protect the public, the rules of engagement require employers and unions to continue providing certain essential services during strikes and lockouts. Employers can use replacement workers if it is necessary to prevent threats to life, health or safety; the destruction or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises. This measured approach would strike a balance between protecting workers' rights and ensuring the essential functioning of businesses in exceptional circumstances.

To enforce the ban, the bill would empower unions to appeal to the Canada Industrial Relations Board if they believed an employer was violating the ban. This independent administrative tribunal has the authority to investigate complaints and, if found valid, order the employer to cease the violation. Furthermore, the bill introduces a maximum fine of $100,000 per day for employers convicted of violating the prohibition, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence.

Bill C-58 would also set clear timelines requiring parties involved in a strike or lockout to come to an agreement within 15 days after notice to bargain collectively. This agreement would outline what activities, if any, need to be maintained during the work stoppage to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the health and safety of the public. If parties cannot reach an agreement, they can apply to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to arbitrate a settlement. The board would be obligated to make a decision within 90 days and could expedite proceedings if necessary. The bill would mandate that parties must have an agreement or a board decision in place before issuing the required 72-hour notice for a strike or a lockout.

The rationale behind Bill C-58 is grounded in the recognition that the ability to form a union, bargain collectively and strike is fundamental to a healthy workforce and democracy. The prohibition of replacement workers would be a critical step toward preserving the integrity of the right to strike, ensuring that workers could act collectively without facing the threat of immediate replacement.

The ban on replacement workers would be a positive economic move. It would promote stability, certainty and better collective agreements by preventing the distraction from the bargaining table that could otherwise prolong disputes and negatively impact workplace dynamics for years. By addressing these challenges head-on, Bill C-58 aims to create an environment conducive to constructive labour relations and economic prosperity.

In conclusion, Bill C-58 represents a significant milestone in the ongoing efforts to enhance the collective bargaining process in federally regulated private sectors. By introducing a ban on replacement workers and improving the collective bargaining process, the legislation aims to strike a balance between workers' rights and the essential functioning of businesses.

Let us all remain focused on the overarching goal, which is to create a fairer and more equitable collective bargaining landscape. Bill C-58 is a step toward achieving this goal. Together we can build a future where the rights of workers are protected and our economy thrives on the principles of fairness and cooperation.

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

Madam Speaker, my friends across the way said that they want to keep me in suspense. That is okay. Suspense is a lot of fun.

I do hope that everyone in this place, across all party lines, will vote for this legislation. It does need amendments. I see that the United Steelworkers union has made it clear that it would like to see the exemptions and the loopholes in this bill, Bill C-58, removed. There are some exemptions that would allow certain categories of workers and volunteers to continue their activities during strikes and lockouts. That certainly undermines the core purpose of this legislation.

The main purpose of this bill is to do away with the use of replacement workers. We do not need small loopholes that allow for the use of replacement workers.

We do not need loopholes. We need to close them up and tighten them up when this bill gets to committee.

Another place where I hope we can see improvements in committee is in getting rid of the 18-month delay before the bill would come into force. We have seen, as I mentioned, that the Province of Quebec has had this legislation for 46 years. The Province of British Columbia also has this legislation. A stable set of union-employer relations and a system of collective bargaining that is respected really matter. Both sides have their tools, and they need to have access to those tools. It is an unbalanced and therefore less economically secure situation for our economy when the tools to one side are removed. Strikes and lockouts actually last longer when scab labour is used. There is greater stability and greater security for our economy when scab labour is eliminated, and I would urge the government to amend the legislation to make this stronger.

However, in looking at this and going back over Hansard to try to find any indication of how my Conservative friends were going to vote, I found that friends from South Shore—St. Margarets, Mégantic—L'Érable, Essex, Calgary Nose Hill, Calgary Rocky Ridge, Chilliwack—Hope, Provencher, Battle River—Crowfoot and Sarnia—Lambton made repeated reference to things that have nothing to do with this legislation. If I may, I will take a moment just to clarify.

When we talk of replacement workers, we mean specifically one thing only: the use of scab labour when a union is in a legal position to strike or there is a lockout. Those are the situations in which replacement workers in this legislation, Bill C-58, are referenced and banned. It is unfortunate, then, that in so much of the very limited debate, consisting of basically three days, with a number of speakers, over and over again Conservative members have raised the Stellantis battery plant, its use of federal dollars and the fact that it is also subcontracting with South Korea. Numerous speakers have made the mistake of referring to workers, in the context of workers from South Korea working at the Stellantis battery plant as part of a trade agreement that was put in place by the previous Conservative government, as somehow being replacement workers. They are emphatically not replacement workers when they are from other countries under agreements that have been made. Certainly, the Green Party prefers that all workers in Canada are Canadian workers who live and work here, but we have many, many agreements with large multinationals to use workers from other countries. Just to be very, very clear for people watching from home, those workers are not replacement workers. They have nothing to do with this legislation.

Therefore, despite references that somehow the Liberals are violating their own Bill C-58 by allowing 900 workers from South Korea at the Stellantis battery plant, saying that they are, as quoted from one of my Conservative colleagues, “essentially replacement workers”, I want to be very clear that they are essentially nothing of the sort. They have nothing to do with Bill C-58. They are not replacement workers. They are, in fact, workers from another country who have been brought in under the kinds of deals that have been organized between transnational corporations and various governments in this country. It is not my favourite thing to see workers come in from other countries, but let us not mix up our concepts, because it creates confusion in the public.

This legislation is, purely and simply, about one thing and one thing only. That is to defend the rights of workers within trade unions to support organized labour in this country, which has given us so much. From work hours that are reasonable and banning child labour to many social improvements right across this country, we can thank organized labour. Workers who go out on strike should never have to see their colleagues crossing a picket line to continue to support the unfair practices of an employer when a union is in a legal strike position.

With that, I would like to thank the House for its time and allow the Green Party to go on record as being strongly in favour of Bill C-58 and strongly in favour of improving it and strengthening it in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member of the Bloc Québécois for his kind introduction and his wonderful speech.

This is my first speech about Bill C-58. The Green Party supports this legislative measure because it is necessary. I am so pleased that we have the opportunity to debate it, and I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this bill. It is so important for workers' rights and employer-employee relations.

I had the experience, before ever becoming involved in partisan politics, and the real honour of working on behalf of organized labour and trade unions. I was a lawyer with the only downtown firm in Halifax, in those days, that represented only union-side labour. All the other downtown firms in Halifax represented the employers. I had the great honour of working on behalf of the longshoremen's union, the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union and others.

I understand something about labour relations and the importance of having leverage, having some way in which workers have tools to create balance so that the employer does not hold all the cards. We know that when a union goes into a legal strike position, it is very important that they are able to exercise those rights, because they are rights. The difficulty we have had in Canada over many years is that, in common parlance or the terminology, employers will use “scab” labour. Scab labour translates to the language in this legislation: “replacement workers”.

It is the same thing. The slang term is “scab workers”. They are a serious threat to workers' rights.

It has been a long time coming to this legislation, as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who just spoke, pointed out.

The province of Quebec has had legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout. That legislation has been in place in Quebec for 46 years.

I want to once again commend Quebec. The Province of Quebec has often been the first to implement such important measures. That was the case with day care and with workers' rights.

Here we are, finally, in February, debating this legislation, at second reading before a vote, which was first tabled in November. While I was waiting for the opportunity to speak this afternoon, I went back over Hansard and tried to find any evidence of any speech from any Conservative member of Parliament that would let us know if they favoured the legislation or not.

We just tried again with the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. I cannot find any clear indication, which means that I live in hope that my Conservative friends will be voting in favour of getting this legislation passed at second reading and to committee where it does need some improvements.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, workers coming together in solidarity, negotiating collectively and at times making the very difficult decision to withhold their labour is something that has raised the material condition of working people in this country for generations and generations. This is not a tactic or a strategy; this is something that is defined in our Constitution.

It is a constitutionally protected right, and yet we have seen again and again consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments undermine the rights of workers in many ways. One of those ways is back-to-work legislation, which we have seen repeatedly in this place. Another of the most pernicious ways workers' rights are undermined is the use of replacement workers, and that is the topic of Bill C-58, which I rise to speak about today on behalf of the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Replacement workers are workers who are brought in by the employer during times of work stoppage, during lockouts and strikes. They are brought in to do the work of unionized workers. When employers use replacement workers, or as they are colloquially referred to, “scabs”, it undermines the ability of unionized workers to negotiate and to secure improvements with their employer through the collective bargaining process.

The use of replacement workers also has a profound impact on communities, especially small communities like the ones I represent. It increases the risk of violence on picket lines. Most significantly of course, it removes the incentive on the part of the employer to bargain in good faith with the employees. The use of replacement workers has been documented as lengthening the duration of labour disputes.

All of these are reasons we need to pass the historic legislation before us. It would be a very significant contribution to the long legacy of codifying workers' rights in Canadian law. It is one that would allow workers to improve their lot at a time when working people in this country are falling farther and farther behind. People are having trouble putting food on the table. People are having trouble accessing the services they need, like pharmacare or dental care, which are things we are also fighting for in this place.

I am exceptionally proud that it is the NDP that once again has forced this historic legislation before us. In fact the NDP has brought forward legislation to ban the use of replacement workers not once, not twice, but eight times over the past 15 years. Each time it has come forward for a vote, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have voted against it, most recently in 2016. Now we have managed, as a party born of and founded by labour, to create the conditions whereby the government has had a change of heart. It has seen the value of banning replacement workers and has chosen, rightly, to work with us to make sure this historic legislation passes through this place.

I cannot say the same for my Conservative colleagues. They are at a very important juncture when it comes to the legislation; the Conservative Party wants the support of working people, and there is a bill before us that is supported by all of the unions in Canada, by the vast majority of working people working under collective agreements.

Conservatives have a choice to make, which is whether they stand with those people to give them an important tool for ensuring that their collective bargaining rights are upheld and their constitutional rights are protected during times of labour dispute, or whether they side with the employers who wish to continue with the status quo and a situation whereby they are able to bring in non-union workers in order to continue production at their facilities. If production is allowed to proceed with the use of replacement workers, the leverage, the negotiating power, of unions is greatly undermined.

This, of course, is legislation that has already been put in place in my home province of British Columbia. I am very proud that we have a progressive provincial government that has seen the value of banning replacement workers. The reality is that the sky has not fallen. The legislation has been in place for some time, and we have seen collective bargaining proceed. We have seen workers manage to negotiate in good faith with their employers and secure benefits they so rightly deserve.

I had a chance to attend the press conference right in the foyer of the House of Commons on the day that the bill was tabled in the House. Standing there listening to labour leaders who have been working on this for decades, hearing them say that it is legislation that working people have been trying to secure for almost as long as Canada has existed, was an emotional moment. It really underlined the historic significance of the bill that is before us.

I will end by recognizing the hard work of my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who worked hard with the Minister of Labour to hammer out the bill we have before us. We want to see it brought into force as quickly as possible, and I sincerely hope that it passes through this place unanimously.

The House resumed from December 14, 2023, 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.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that nothing is scarier than driving down Conservative highways, whether it is in Kamouraska or Témiscouata. Conservatives vote against highway infrastructure and refuse to fund them.

Later today, we will be voting on third reading of Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, the early learning and child care legislation.

Next week is a constituency week during which the House is adjourned. We will, of course, be in our ridings to serve our constituents.

Upon our return, the agenda will include Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations, 2012, which deals with replacement workers. On Wednesday, we will continue debate on Bill C‑61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands. Finally, Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

I thank the members for their attention and wish them a good week in their ridings.

Labour

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the hon. parliamentary secretary is not on this file, I appreciate his words, saying that the government is grateful to these workers. However, the government has to show it, not just say it. Why will it not get back to the table? Why would the employer threaten to remove their trailer when they need it in these winter months? Why, during the strike, would a government that stated it was so proud to introduce Bill C-58, the ban on replacement workers, now use Canadian Armed Forces as scab labour to do the work of the people of the SNPFCF? Why is it using scab labour in this situation? What is the explanation for that?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, ministers. Thank you very much for being here. I'm sorry I have to participate in the meeting by video conference for health reasons. I still want to welcome you.

Mr. O'Regan, I would like to talk to you about Bill C-58, which concerns replacement workers and is known as the anti-scab legislation. You actually talked about it. You said, rightly so, that the fact that the federal government is still allowing the use of strikebreakers in 2024 is disrupting working conditions and labour relations. In fact, we have a flagrant example in Quebec: Longshore workers at the Port of Québec affiliated with the Canadian Union of Public Employees have been locked out for 500 days. For 500 days now, the employer has been using strikebreakers with impunity. This puts workers in an extremely difficult financial situation. It also takes away their ability to negotiate their employment contract in good faith, since the employer has the upper hand.

When you introduced this bill last November, it was welcomed by everyone—both the unions and the Bloc Québécois. In fact, since 1990, the Bloc Québécois has introduced 11 bills on this issue.

This bill was introduced as a result of a joint agreement between the Liberal Party and the NDP, but it still has to be passed so that it becomes law and so that the use of replacement workers is banned once and for all. The unions are calling for the bill to be passed more quickly. Will you commit to speeding up the process to ensure that the legislation sees the light of day in this Parliament?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for having me. I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

I want to give you an overview of what I'm working on, and then I'd be happy to take some questions.

I work as the Minister of Labour and as Minister for Seniors, and really, if you look at what drives both of these things, it's dignity. It's making sure that Canadians have dignity in their work so that workers have not just jobs but good jobs—jobs they're trained to do, jobs that they're well paid to do and jobs that are good for them in mind and in body.

I want every senior to age with dignity. That means that they're not making hard choices at the checkout because their fixed income is too tight, and if they need new dentures, they can afford them. They can age where they want, surrounded by the community and the people who they choose.

As the Minister of Labour, I feel that the federal government needs to set the bar for workplaces. That means looking at employers and workers in federally regulated sectors and constantly asking them how we can do better.

In December 2022, we brought in 10 days of paid sick leave for these workers. Workers called for it and employers supported it. The Canadian Bankers Association, Via Rail and others spoke out in support of it, because no worker should have to choose between getting paid and getting better.

Last December we tabled legislation to ban the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout. Replacement workers distract from the bargaining table, prolong disputes, and can poison workplaces for years. Our economy depends on employers and unions staying at the table and doing the hard work they need to do to reach a deal. Bill C-58 is not the same bill that's been brought to Parliament in the past. It was developed through tripartism with workers and employers. Sometimes I was in the room with both of them at the same time. Conversations were tense, but the result was a bill that is going to keep the bargaining table fair and balanced. It also strengthens the maintenance-of-activities process, which is something both employers and workers asked for.

I will use this moment to say that I have the utmost respect for my NDP colleague Alexandre Boulerice and his partnership on this issue. I'm disappointed that after 75 days of tabling legislation, we haven't got the support where we need it, but we trudge on.

When we talk about the government setting the bar as an employer, that is right down to hygiene. As of December 15, all federally regulated employers must provide free menstrual products in the workplace. It's common sense. Workplaces provide toilet paper, soap and hand sanitizer, and it's past time we did that with menstrual products too.

Setting the bar means admitting when things aren't perfect. We have not reached pay equity in the federal sectors, but to close the gaps, we need to know where the gaps are. Last Friday we launched Equi'Vision, an online, first-of-its-kind pay transparency website. You can see—by industry and minority—rates of pay, and you can compare them.

As Minister of Seniors, I am responsible for ensuring that seniors can age with dignity.

That comes down to choice, affordability and community.

Last year, my predecessor and the former minister of health announced that the National Seniors Council would serve as an expert panel to examine measures, including a potential aging-at-home benefit. The panel has completed its work, and we are currently reviewing the findings.

We developed a federal policy definition of mistreatment of older persons. This is important for a culture change in public awareness regarding this important issue, although the federal policy definition will not replace jurisdictional definitions and will not be included in any Criminal Code amendments.

We need to do a lot more for seniors. That's the least we can do.

Finally, I'm working with my colleague, the honourable Minister of Health, to develop a safe long-term care act to help ensure that Canadians get the care they deserve, while still respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

I'm also very concerned with defending and preserving the Canada pension plan. There is no one more dependent on our social security systems than seniors, and they deserve a government that is proud of the systems we have in Canada: GIS, OAS, CPP, universal health care and dental care. We are committed to protecting them.

Thank you.

I look forward to taking your questions.

[Robin Guy]

I think, in reading Bill C-58, that it firmly tips the power in favour of one of the parties. Where do I get the piece? I'll cite the passage from the government's own consultation paper, which states, “The majority of these studies suggest that when a province prohibits replacement workers, this is associated with more frequent strikes and lockouts, at least in some sectors”. I'm citing the government's own consultation paper when I say that this is going to cause problems. To be honest with you, our members are superworried.

I think that, when we take a look at what replacement workers are, they are often managers who are really keeping the lights on for our economy.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here today.

I am going to start with Mr. Guy. You mentioned Bill C-58. That's the bill that would ban replacement workers in federally regulated industries.

You intimated that places that ban replacement workers will have longer strikes and be more disruptive and less stable when, in fact, the longest, bitterest, worst strikes in Canadian history were generally those that involved replacement workers, because they took away the need for the employer to even talk to the workers. This whole bill is designed to basically level the playing field and make things more stable. British Columbia has had this legislation for decades. Quebec has had this legislation.

We heard at an earlier meeting of this committee, when we were studying the last Vancouver port strike, that it was over 50 years ago. It's not like British Columbia is a rampant place for strikes. Part of that is that it has the same legislation in the provincial jurisdiction that we are proposing for the federal jurisdiction.

I'm just wondering where you get this idea that banning replacement workers would make strikes last longer and happen more often. This legislation is designed to give workers the same rights that employers have. Those disputes tend to be solved more quickly because both the workers and the employers have their minds fixed and focused on finding a solution.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for having me here today on behalf of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. Since 1871, CME has been helping manufacturers grow, improving the well-being of their workers and the communities in which they operate. We are pleased to participate in your study on the contributions of Canadian companies to domestic and global supply chains.

Members of this committee will know better than most that the global supply networks that Canadian firms participate in are in a state of continuous transformation under the influence of complex technological, geopolitical and environmental factors. Amidst this ongoing change, CME continually surveys our members and the domestic and international conditions in which they operate to provide the best advice possible to policy-makers. CME recently released our latest findings and recommendations to revitalize Canada's manufacturing sector in a report entitled “Manufacturing Canada's Future”. We will share that with this committee to support your work. “Manufacturing Canada's Future” provides a comprehensive set of recommendations on how governments can help Canadian manufacturers seize the opportunities presented by the current global environment.

In the next few minutes, I will quickly touch on a couple of issues that we believe are critical to your study.

The first is that Canada must take action to change the trajectory of business investment in the manufacturing sector, which has been weak relative to our global peers for the last two decades. Capital investment is critical for long-term growth and for being competitive in global markets. Increasing our domestic manufacturing capacity will increase our exports. In fact, Canada's investment in the manufacturing sector over the last 20 years has been so sluggish that it has been unable to compensate for the depreciation of existing plants and assets. The stock of capital in Canada's manufacturing sector peaked in 2000 and has been trending down ever since, whereas it continues to climb to record highs in the United States. This is another worrying sign that Canada's manufacturing sector is becoming less competitive on the global stage.

While the federal government can take a range of tax and regulator steps to help incentivize manufacturing business investment, the single most urgent step is to accelerate Canada's response to the Inflation Reduction Act. The race to build and lead the transition to a clean economy is one of the most significant global economic transformations since the Industrial Revolution. The IRA is reordering global supply chains. As budget 2023 correctly noted, “without swift action, the sheer scale of U.S. incentives will undermine Canada's ability to attract the investments needed to establish Canada as a leader in the growing and highly competitive global clean economy.”

CME is pleased that the government has taken many of our direct recommendations and worked closely with the manufacturing sector in developing Canada's response, specifically the five investment tax credits announced in budget 2023. However, Canada must act with more urgency to get these ITCs in place, specifically implementing the clean technology, carbon capture and utilization, and clean manufacturing ITCs. Notwithstanding the eligibility dates for these tax credits, industry is still waiting for the application and policy guidelines. Businesses cannot yet apply, and this uncertainty is impacting business decisions. Global and North American supply chain opportunities are being missed, and they will continue to be until these tax credits are in place.

The second critical issue I'd like to raise, to echo some of my industry colleagues at the table, is around the challenges facing Canada's transportation networks that manufacturers rely on for their inputs and to reach their customers. Recent labour disruptions, capacity constraints and extreme weather-related events have impacted the speed, agility and resilience of our transportation infrastructure and manufacturing supply chains.

Infrastructure that enables transportation and trade is one of the single best economic investments that any government can make, because it makes all the users of that infrastructure more productive. However, unlike many of our competitors, Canada's investments in transportation infrastructure have been made sporadically rather than on a sustained and strategic basis. CME has been working with industry partners and is supportive of the proposal for a Canada trade infrastructure plan to develop an integrated and long-term transportation infrastructure investment strategy.

Lastly, as this committee considers its recommendations for net new supports, programs or other interventions, we would strongly encourage you to reconsider current government initiatives that will harm manufacturers' ability to attract and retain new customers. Specifically, we too have concerns with Bill C-58, the legislation before the House of Commons that will ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. Having just conducted meetings on the economic and reputational impacts of last year's work stoppage at the port of Vancouver, we hope that members of this committee will oppose this or any other measure that will create an imbalance in the collective bargaining process in this country.

Bill C-58 will result in more strikes, and strikes that last longer. These stoppages have significant costs that will be borne by Canadian manufacturers, their workers and their families. More labour disruptions that last longer will mean lost customers and a further decay in Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner. At a minimum, we are hopeful that the report coming out of this study will acknowledge the negative impacts of Bill C-58 on the manufacturing sector's ability and contributions to global supply chains.

There is a range of other supply chain—