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

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little curious and would like to get more information from the member. Specifically, while he was speaking, I was reflecting about the fact that the Conservative leader stands frequently and says that he is there for workers. Now, the member is saying that he wants to see deals happening at the bargaining table. At the same time, I am not hearing a clear answer around what his stance is on the bill. We know that workers need to have the capacity to be at the bargaining table when they are forced to do so, to fight for fair and respectful working conditions. Replacement workers take away that capacity for workers to fight for what is right, for them to have a dignified and respectful working environment.

Can the member please clarify? Will he and his Conservative colleagues be voting in favour of the bill, or will they do what they have always done and not be there for workers?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the notion underlying the member's question, which is that we are against workers. That is absolutely unacceptable. Besides that, we are asking for better examination and for the bill to be carefully done.

By the way, we have not yet heard from the unions or the workers. We have heard only from the NDP. If it thinks it is the only party to represent unions and workers in this place, then we are in bad shape here.

The answer is that we need the bill to be studied properly and carefully. That is what we are asking for.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-58, a very important piece of legislation. It was a commitment made by both the Liberals and the NDP in the last election, something we have been able to work together on in order to bring forward legislation to the House so we could provide a better environment for workers to be able to negotiate new contracts or re-negotiate existing contracts with employers. That is what the bill seeks to do.

We know that when there are individuals who want to go on strike, they are usually doing it for a fairly important reason. They are sometimes doing it because their wages are not reflecting the reality of what they believe they should be paid. They are doing it because they are worried about the conditions in which they are working. They are doing it because they are worried about job security and what their employers are providing for them.

We know that when they do make the decision to go on strike, which does and, quite frankly, should happen from time to time in order to properly demonstrate the need and the requirement to change working conditions, it has to be taken very seriously.

The employer's having the opportunity to bring in scab labour, replacement workers who are there while negotiating, significantly takes away from the employer's ability to negotiate in good faith. Think about that for a second. What if someone were on the management side of a firm and had to negotiate, and the only thing being held against them was the ability of people to strike? What if, at the same time, they had the opportunity to bring people in to replace the workers while management was in the process of negotiating with the striking employees? Management would not face the same realities that those who are on strike would.

When a union decides to go on strike, extreme hardships can be felt by the employees. They are not paid anymore. Sometimes they are given small stipends from their union, but it is nowhere near what they would be making normally. They are taking on hardships in order to stand up for their rights. If an employer has the opportunity to negotiate while having replacement or scab labour in place, they are going to be negotiating from a much more comfortable position in terms of their ability to continue to function. While employees have the hardships imposed upon them through either a strike or a lockout, in the same vein, we have to make sure that the negotiating position is balanced. That is done by ensuring that employers have to feel the same kind of pain, for lack of a better expression. They have to be faced with the same reality that if they do not get to a deal quickly, they cannot continue to function in their business in the manufacturing sector or whatever it might be. As a result, they have to be motivated.

We know that the best deals are those that are made at the bargaining table. We know that when we can encourage, through various different pieces of legislation, both sides to sit down and work out a deal, it will produce the best result for everybody. It can be a messy process, and we have seen that time and time again through the history of this country, in terms of organized labour. It can be messy when people are striking. Just yesterday, I was driving through Quebec and saw a number of people protesting in a strike that was ongoing there.

This is part of the process. It is about bringing to the attention of the employer that there is a significant need for the employee that is not being addressed by the employer. That is why the best deals are those that are made at the table by bringing the two parties together to be able to do that. That is why the legislation before us would specifically prohibit employers from using the following workers from doing the work of striking or locked out employees: first, new hires, such as employees and managers hired after notice to bargain collectively is given; and, second, contractors, regardless of when they were hired.

The bill also seeks to prohibit employers from using the services of employees in a bargaining unit when that bargaining unit is in a full strike or lockout where all employees in the unit are expected to stop working. I think this is really important, because a union's strength is in its unity and membership. Unions operate in a democratic fashion. They elect their leadership, which is there to represent them; it is critically important to ensure that some who might not have voted in favour are still subject to the leadership that they have democratically elected. I can see how it might be tempting otherwise for individuals to do this, but again, at the end of the day, we know that the best deals are those that are made at the table and not by the influences that come from using outside forms of labour in the meantime. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. I will not get into detail, but they relate primarily to health and safety and environmental impacts on the property of the employer.

However, this bill also seeks to ensure that, if unions believe that an employer is violating a ban, they may complain to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This is an independent administrative tribunal whose job is to resolve workplace disputes and certain appeals that arise under the Criminal Code, among other acts. The board can investigate, and if it agrees with the complaint, order the employer to stop the violation. It is also really important that a hefty fine comes along with this to further discourage the employer from moving toward this kind of action. It sets out a maximum fine of $100,000 per day if the employer is prosecuted and convicted of violating the prohibition. Members can see that the intent of the bill is really to put as many measures in place to prevent these activities of employing scab or replacement workers for the purposes of, once again, ensuring that people get to the bargaining table and having meaningful discussions there.

One other thing I want to address, and perhaps I pre-empt a question from my NDP colleagues, is that NDP members have been steadfast in their support for the bill. However, they have said that they forced the government to do this; I do not quite look at it like that. We did run on this. It is on page 22 of our last election platform, but it may have been slightly different. We may have worked on this in a way with the NDP to make the bill even stronger, which is great. That is what this entire process is about. Our Westminster parliamentary system is based on the idea that, if one party does not form a majority, we work with other political parties to develop strategies and policies that we can bring forward on behalf of the Canadian people, in our case anyhow. That is what we are seeing.

Therefore, I think that the NDP should rightfully take credit for some of this, as they have done good work on it. I also think that the government has done extremely good work on it, and the Liberal Party has been committed to it as well. I hear that call from the NDP, but I respectfully disagree that it was forced. Nobody forced anybody to do anything. This was one of the terms of that agreement that we came to in order to work together in a productive manner.

To that end, I am very glad that there is another political party in this room made up of adults, when it comes to doing meaningful things for the people we represent. I would say two, one of which is the Bloc. It is not always just about saying no, because the objective is to be an obstructionist at any cost. The objective is genuine in this agreement. I quite often see a genuine objective from the Bloc as well to advance better policy, ideas and legislation for the people we individually represent.

However, I am very concerned, once again, about the lack of clarity on this issue from my colleagues on the other side of the House, the Conservatives. They have given a couple of speeches on this. They were asked a direct question just moments ago by my NDP colleague about whether they will support the bill. They skate around it, they do not answer, they give vague statements, they are not concrete on it and they will not even say that they will support the bill to get to committee, which is just an initial step.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

They are heckling me now.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will not even say that they will support it just to get it to committee where they want to do this work. We heard the member for Edmonton Manning say that just moments ago. They want to have a thorough discussion and thorough examination; a lot of that happens at committee.

Will they support getting it to committee? I raise this because it is an important observation. We have seen this happen a couple times now with the Conservatives, especially since September, where they are very non-committal on an issue. When they do get up and speak about it, like the bill we were debating yesterday, they do not even mention the issue at hand. Thankfully, they are at least talking about workers in this context. What do they do next? They vote against it.

Where did we see that recently? With the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The Conservatives never committed, in all the speeches that they gave in this House, to what their position was. Then one by one, they stood up and voted against Ukraine and showed exactly who they were. They are not going to get away with that. The Canadian people are going to know how they voted and the Canadian people do know.

In the news cycle yesterday, there was a lot of talk about the Leader of the Opposition, his right-wing politics and where he is going, where he is taking this party, by even some of the most Conservative pundits out there who write opinion pieces on the position of the Conservative Party. There is this fake notion of a price on pollution, when it clearly states in the agreement that no particular country's environmental policies can impact another country. They look for these red herrings to be able to do this.

We did not let them get away with that. If the Conservatives' plan again this time is to just skate around the issue of workers, stand up and say that they support workers, that they are there with workers until the end and that they will always support workers, but then turn around and vote for it when it is time to vote, we are going to report that back to Canadians. I am sure my colleagues in the NDP are going to help us do that.

Canadians deserve to know where the Conservatives stand. When they get up in this House and talk about an issue, they need to be able to say they support it or they do not support it. They cannot any longer get away with the rhetoric we hear from across the way and the approach they have been taking.

I am very happy to tell members that I will be supporting this. I want to see this go to committee. I know there have already been a couple issues brought up, I think, in good faith, that can be discussed at committee. The committee can look into the issue to make even better legislation. The idea that we are going to be able to just stand up and talk about how amazing Conservatives have been for workers when the record does not come anywhere near to reflecting that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I do not know why they would clap for that.

Mr. Speaker, their record is not anywhere near reflective of that. The reality is that the vast majority of Canadians know that Conservatives do not support workers. They support big corporations and that has always been their MO. They come from the position of trickle-down economics from the Ronald Reagan era. As long as they make things better for the most wealthy, as long as they make things better for the corporations and as long as they strip more taxes from corporations, they swear it is going to trickle down to the workers. Workers are going to be impacted by that and they will be so much better off as a result.

We know that Reagan economics failed. We know that it has only, over the last several decades, contributed to a wider gap between the haves and the have-nots. That is why we need meaningful legislation, like we have before us today, that will force the employer to come to the bargaining table under the same conditions as the employee, which is the condition of fighting for their job, for job security, for fair wages and for benefits from their employer. Just like we expect an employee to do that, we need to expect the employer is going to come with the same restrictions and the same hardships associated to them if they do not negotiate in good faith.

I am glad to see this legislation has come forward. I am really happy we are able to work with our colleagues in the NDP to make this a reality. I am going to cut my comments off there because I think that will give more time to one of my NDP colleagues later down the road.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let us clarify the record on the Liberals' record with Ukraine. The Liberals sent a turbine to Russia to help Putin fund his war machine. They invited a Nazi to the House of Commons when the President of Ukraine was here. They voted against our motion to give Ukraine the weapons it was asking for, and we just found out today that the Liberals are allowing Canada to sell land-mine detonators to Russia.

With respect to the subject of replacement workers, in 2016, legislation of a similar nature was brought and the Liberals voted against it. Why is there a flip-flop? Is it because the Liberals see that they are plummeting in the polls with the union workers, or is it to try to bolster a shaky relationship with their NDP coalition partners?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is it because it was on page 22 of our election platform?

The member brought up Ukraine. I am so glad that she did. She took the bait very well. The member wants to talk about Ukraine. The reality is that she is trying to somehow justify Conservative support for Ukraine. I will go back and check her Twitter feed to see if she has said anything about Zelenskyy being here in September because I know her boss did not. He did not once mention his presence here. As a matter of fact, the member for Calgary Nose Hill had to go back to quote a tweet on his visit from 2022 as a way to say, “Thanks for coming to visit us in Parliament.”

The reality is that the member is critical of our position on Ukraine. President Zelenskyy asked her to vote for the free trade agreement. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked her to vote for the free trade agreement. Two million Canadians are depending on that member and the Conservatives to stand up for them and for the democratic principles that we promote throughout the world and she failed Ukraine. She turned her back on Ukraine. That is a decision she made earlier this week and something she has to live with.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is truly very much in favour of the bill. The House will recall that the Bloc Québécois has introduced 11 such bills, with the first attempt dating back to 1990. It was the dean of the House who introduced that first bill.

This morning, my colleague from Saint-Jean asked the parliamentary secretary a question. She wanted to know why there will be an 18‑month waiting period before the bill comes into force once it receives royal assent. The parliamentary secretary told her that we could ask that question in committee.

However, why this change when usually a bill comes into force as soon as there is royal assent? Since this is a Liberal bill, I wonder if my colleague can give me the reason for this delay.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of the fact that it was the dean of the House, a sitting member of the Bloc Québécois, who first introduced this legislation decades ago, but I am not surprised. Once again we are seeing how Quebec has shown leadership with respect to issues like this. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation in place for decades now. Quebec continually does this, to its benefit and to its credit. When it comes to environmental legislation, or getting an equitable workplace or getting more women into the workplace, Quebec once again leads the path. Therefore, I am not surprised to hear once again that this is an initiative for which Quebec has been fighting for a long time. We can learn a lot from the lessons that we have seen from Quebec with respect to issues like this.

With respect to the member's question about the timing, I am not exactly sure why 18 months was a requirement, but I know if we get this to committee we can have the questions asked there and perhaps, if necessary, amend it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking so much about the Liberal platform commitment on anti-scab legislation. What is important to note, but I did not hear the member say, is that the commitment was to legislate against scabs in the case of a lockout. Therefore, it was not actually about protecting the right to strike, which is fundamental to workers' being able to bring home more powerful paycheques; it was about slapping employers on the wrist if they lock workers out.

However, we know that if we really want to take anti-scab legislation seriously and we want to defend the right to collective bargaining, workers themselves should be able to go out on strike to fight for better wages and enjoy that protection. Therefore, I am very glad that the NDP was able to bring that and push the government to do that.

I also heard the member talk about trickle-down economics. I agree with his analysis. Does that mean he would be willing to raise the corporate tax rate by a percentage point to triple the government's investment in affordable housing initiatives and make them happen now instead of two years from now?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I said that our proposal may have been slightly different from that of the NDP. The result is better and I will be the first to say that. Yes, we ran on something slightly different, but the NDP said this was a better way to do it and we came to an agreement that is going to be for the betterment of all Canadians. That is the difference between parties that can work together and being confronted with an opposition whose purpose is to be completely obstructionary in its approach.

To his question about raising taxes, the member has raised this before. What I am very concerned about, which I can certainly see eye to eye on with the NDP because I know the NDP has raised it, is corporations, the grocery giants in particular. We need to be doing more to control the greedflation that exists. I do not disagree, personally, that it exists. Is it as easy as raising taxes by x amount on every single corporation in the country? I think he would be the first to admit that a lot of small businesses are corporations in this country as well, so maybe that is not the right way to do it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, when we came to this place in 2015, the hon. member probably knew about the horrific track record of the Conservative Party with the legislation it passed under the Harper government. I was wondering if he could enlighten this House on what we saw when the Conservatives were last in power.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding that has a lot of public sector employees and a lot of people who are impacted directly or indirectly by the public sector. There were so many public sector employees back in 2014-15 in my riding who took extreme issue with what the Conservatives had done. They had even lost the support of corrections guards. That is where we were. I was meeting with corrections employees and their unions to discuss what Stephen Harper had done to them.

The reality is that no person, in my opinion, with a memory of the Harper years and how he treated organized labour could stand and honestly say that Stephen Harper was on the side of organized labour. It just did not exist.