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

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to legislation that is so important to Canada's economy and that would contribute in many different ways. I like to think that at times we get legislation before us that can receive wide support.

It is a issue which, for me on a personal note, I could ultimately go back to when I was first elected in 1988, was probably one of the most substantive issues I had to face in the Manitoba legislature, and it was done in a different form. Labour has always been an important aspect of my political career, as I know it has been for many of my colleagues. I am very proud that we have what I would suggest is a very progressive Prime Minister who understands how important labour is to our country. We have a very proactive Minister of Labour, who has been given a mandate to bring in anti-scab legislation. This is the type of legislation that I have talked about for many years. It is the type of legislation that the Minister of Labour has been talking about for a long time also. It is the type of legislation that when we were in opposition, we often saw private members' bills from the Conservative Party, which we were in opposition to because they were “anti-union organizing” pieces of legislation.

Therefore, it would appear, based on second reading and from what I have been hearing from other members in the chamber, that there is a very good chance that this legislation will pass unanimously. I really and truly hope that it does because it sends a very powerful message to all Canadians in terms of the important role unions play in today's society and the importance of having labour harmony in Canada, and in terms of how this legislation can have a positive impact.

I would encourage members to look at, for example, anti-replacement workers or anti-scab legislation that was brought in first in the province of Quebec. The next province that brought it in was British Columbia. I would argue, and many in this chamber would no doubt add their voices to it, that through the legislation, we saw more harmony in the workforce. Ultimately, I believe that the type of legislation being proposed and the expectation that it will receive widespread support, is really encouraging, and we should not be taking it for granted because as a political issue, as I say, it has been with me for many years. I will reflect on that just to give people a sense of how controversial it could be.

My home province of Manitoba is an important part of Canada's labour history. Before I go on to my specific case, just so that people following the debate today will realize, in labour history in Canada, one of the major protests we saw at the very beginning would have been with George Brown, who was the founder of The Globe and Mail and who organized and played an important role in terms of printing-press people, where there was a significant rally in front of the Ontario legislature in Toronto.

Fast forward to the one I often talk about, and that is the Winnipeg general 1919 strike, which is embedded in the minds of many, even non-union members. I often look at the Winnipeg Free Press, and one of the pages and pictures that it continually reprints is the trolley car that was turned over during the 1919 strike on Bloody Saturday, which has had an impact on the labour movement here in Canada.

In fact, on the 100th anniversary of the 1919 general strike, we contributed, as a House of Commons, to a trolley replica. It was put just outside of Pantages and across the street from the city hall so that people walking by get a sense of what had taken place because it stands out there, and they have to wonder why that is there. It is connected to something that the Winnipeg Free Press publishes on a regular basis about that trolley car.

That sculpture is very symbolic for the city of Winnipeg and even for our country, because through that strike that took place and through organized labour at the time, in the area I represent, with the Ukrainian Labour Temple, in the traditional north end of Winnipeg on McGregor Street, the organizers would often be in different areas, particularly in the north end of Winnipeg, organizing that strike.

We found that even though there were some low points where workers were hurt, maimed and killed, I took away, from that particular strike, that labour was not just concerned about the working conditions that people found themselves in. From my perspective, it took on a social movement of sorts. It was not just about working x number of hours and getting paid x amount of money, but also about the way of life and how people, particularly people with smaller incomes, were being exploited and were being taken advantage of. There was a role for unions at the time, not only to advocate for those wages and working conditions, but also to often reflect on social programming.

When I look at Winnipeg, I think it is a good example of what took place and the labour movement ever since. In 1988, when I was first elected, we had this thing called final offer selection, and at the time, it was being debated. The Progressive Conservative Party opposed the legislation, and the NDP supported the legislation but was not prepared to accept any amendments to the legislation. At the time, we were the official opposition to the Liberal Party. We wanted to maintain the legislation, and we were prepared to accept an amendment if the Conservatives would allow the legislation to survive.

We sat for many hours, late into the evening, on committees and heard from many different unions on a wide spectrum of issues. To get the final offer selection, it was actually fought for; it was a compromise. Final offer selection was brought in by Howard Pawley, the NDP Premier, as a compromise, because in the election prior, Howard Pawley had actually promised to bring in anti-scab legislation. Manitoba was going to have anti-scab legislation, but because of the resistance, the NDP at the time decided not to bring in replacement worker legislation; as a compromise, it brought in the final offer selection.

In my first two years as a parliamentarian, in a minority situation, an extensive debate took place. It was like a crash course on the importance of labour, listening to so many representatives from labour and from management, and other stakeholders who came there.

We sat through all sorts of hours of committees and debates that took place. Sadly, final offer selection was killed. I would ultimately argue that it was prematurely killed because the political parties, collectively, could not see the merit in having final offer selection.

For those people who do not necessarily understand what final offer selection is, it provided the union the opportunity to say, “Look, negotiations are not going well, and there's a level of distrust that we cannot overcome”, and then it would request that final offer selection be implemented. Through final offer selection, an arbitrator comes in and says to the union and to the management group, “Give me your best offer.” Ultimately, that is what happens: Both sides present to the arbitrator, and the arbitrator is not allowed to change anything but has to take one over the other with no modifications.

If one were to review Hansard from that time, one would find that this was actually fairly effective. It made both union and management come to the table and give it their best shot, knowing full well that one side was not necessarily going to be overly happy, because the other side was going to be chosen. The argument, in part, at the time was that, over time, it would in fact work out. Final offer selection was used, and I believe it proved to be effective.

However, sadly, because there was no consensus achieved between the political parties, the personalities at the time, we ended up losing final offer selection in Manitoba. In my opinion, that set back labour relations and many of the efforts of unions. I would reflect on this over the years, and if members check, even as a member of Parliament in previous years I have raised the issue of final offer selection, as it was an opportunity that Manitoba lost because there was no political consensus.

Fast-forward to today, when there is a Minister of Labour who has invested so much time and energy with the department and who has come forward with a piece of legislation that is ultimately being supported, from what I understand, by all members of the House of Commons. Through the ideas of whether it is the Prime Minister's bringing it in as part of a platform, to issuing it in the form of a mandate letter to a caucus that truly understands the importance of labour and how it impacts the Canadian economy and society, we had the support to move forward on this substantive issue.

We quickly found out that we expected to receive support from the New Democrats and even the Bloc, because of the history of the Bloc in the province of Quebec, but we were pleasantly surprised that the Conservatives actually supported it going into committee. Some of my colleagues might question the motivation for that, but I am not going to do that. I am going to take it that they actually do support the legislation. I am going to say that the glass is half full, and it is going to be full, because at the end of the day, I really do think it is going to pass with the unanimous support of the House.

I should not take the Green Party for granted. My understanding is that the Green Party, being a progressive party, will hopefully also be endorsing the legislation. I cannot recall offhand what the leader of the Green Party has said.

I see the legislation as a positive thing. I think it sends a powerful message, and other provinces should take note of it. My daughter, who is a provincial MLA in Manitoba, brought it up in Manitoba shortly after we introduced the legislation here. Today I can tell members that the Province of Manitoba seems to be moving forward on the issue of anti-scab legislation, with a huge expectation that we will see that legislation brought into the province of Manitoba.

I think that is a wonderful thing because the federal legislation has limitations in terms of whom it impacts. The ideal situation would be to have provinces throughout the country recognize that not only do the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia have it, but that now we also have leadership coming from Ottawa indicating that Ottawa is moving forward. More importantly, or just as importantly, it appears to be moving forward with the support of all political parties.

When we have had partisan debates in the past, I have not seen the type of support that the legislation before us has actually received, so I want to personally congratulate the Minister of Labour in particular and his team of individuals who were able to do the consultation that was necessary along with the work that is so very important to achieving a consensus. That consensus will in fact benefit all of us.

Not only am I optimistic for the province of Manitoba, but I also believe that there are other provinces that will take note, whether through individual members in other legislatures or political parties as a whole that will recognize that if Ottawa can pass this kind of legislation, then provincial jurisdictions can too. Two provinces have already done so and have had it in place for years.

That is why I believe it is legislation that could really have a positive outcome for us as a nation, because it is about labour harmony. When we talk about building a stronger and healthier economy, about having a sense of fairness, about enhancing the middle class or about investing in solid social programs, whether pensionable programs, health care services or other programs dealing with issues like seniors and people with disabilities, these are issues that the labour movement has been talking about for many, many years, and to which it has contributed in a positive way.

We have pharmacare on our agenda, and I can recall meeting with union reps to talk about the importance of pharmacare. I believe that, at the end of the day, we should take advantage of the consensus that I believe is here on the floor of the House of Commons. We recognize how this type of legislation would help Canada's economy and our society as a whole. I believe that it would have a positive impact on labour here in Canada.

There are lots of details within the legislation. The Minister of Labour has highlighted them. The bill also went through second reading where the details were highlighted. I would require another half an hour or so to go through the details, but I do not want to filibuster the legislation or ask for unanimous consent to have the leave to do so.

I will leave my comments on that positive note. It is great to see members of all political parties unite behind good, solid labour legislation.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear the member for Winnipeg North speak in the House, as opposed to one of the many other Liberals who always speak instead.

I have a couple of comments. First of all, the member said himself that this is such an important issue, that he has talked about it for so many years and that the Minister of Labour has talked about it for so many years. It is funny how it is so important that it has taken them nine years. I think there is a bit of political opportunism there.

The member talked a lot, as he did previously on Bill C-58, about the great strike in 1919. The Canadian Encyclopedia says the cause of the strike was inflation costs, due to which housing and food were too much to afford. How does the member feel about creating the identical situations in Canada, under his government, that caused the great strike in 1919?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a continuation of my speech and in the spirit in which the question was posed, I am going to keep positive, because if we look at Canada's interest rate or its inflation rate, we would find, in comparison to virtually any other country in the world, in particular, let us say, the G7 or G20 countries, Canada is doing exceptionally well. In fact, our inflation rate has dropped to 2.7% and we have been on target for the last four months. Hopefully we will see a decrease in the interest rate.

It is important that in the House of Commons, not only the government should be focused on trying to improve economic conditions. Even though we are doing much better than most of our peers, it is still important that we focus our attention on that rather than on a lot of the other, more negative, aspects of politics that we often witness on the floor of the House of Commons. By doing that, we are helping Canadians.

Hopefully, over the next number of months we can collectively come to an agreement, the inflation rate will remain in the direction it is going and we will see more relief with respect to interest rates, but we have to respect the independence of the Bank of Canada.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague opposite sees the glass as half full. If I were on the same side of the House as he is, I would likely try to do the same thing.

He also mentioned that the government acted very quickly on Bill C-58. I would like to remind him that the first bill was introduced by my colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel in 1990 and that 30 bills have been introduced since then, including my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville's Bill C-276.

Since we are talking about timelines, the Bloc Québécois wants this bill to come into force as soon as it receives royal assent, but we could not come to an agreement in committee with the other parties, which want an 18-month delay between royal assent and the coming into force of the bill. We did, however, manage to agree on a 12-month delay. We are still concerned, because the bill could be at risk if an election is called before it comes into force.

Since the government wants to move so quickly and since everyone agrees with that, as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government who sees the glass as half full, why can Bill C-58 not come into force as soon as it receives royal assent?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we first formed government in 2015-16, we took a number of substantive measures. The first was giving Canada's middle class a tax break. I am sure the member recalls that. It was very well received. Other legislation we brought in took back private members' bills that many had perceived as anti-union bills. That was very well received by the labour movement. We have also been very proactive in terms of providing supports, such things as apprenticeship training, looking at ways to promote and have more harmony within the labour force, and, of course, consultation.

We also have to factor in that there was a worldwide pandemic that had to be dealt with. There were all sorts of things, but even with a very busy legislative agenda over the years, the ministers have in fact been working with labour in particular, and with other stakeholders. It is great that the legislation is at the stage it is, which we should acknowledge, and we have built consensus. Because we did it right, we now have the type of consensus we have today. Hopefully the bill will pass today.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for workers. It is a good day for New Democrats. It is a good day to make certain that unions can participate in making sure workers have powerful paycheques because powerful paycheques come from powerful unions. This is an incredible success and a testament to workers and their exercising of rights across the country.

It is immensely disappointing, though, to know both the Liberals and Conservatives, when New Democrats tabled this bill 15 times, voted against it. It is incredibly important that we acknowledge the hard work of the unions that have been pushing this for generations now. I am proud to be part of a party that forced the government to bring this legislation to a vote. I am proud to be part of a party that is going to ensure unions actually have the power to make sure their material conditions are improved.

Why has it taken the Liberals so long to participate in making sure unions are more powerful?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really encouraging to recognize that, for the first time, we very much have a progressive Prime Minister who understands and appreciates the importance of supporting Canadians and labour. The Prime Minister has not been in government for 15 years. I can understand the frustration. I made reference to Howard Pawley's promise of anti-scab legislation well over 30 years ago, and 30 years ago we could have had final offer selection. We have been waiting for the longest time for that, but because we now have the federal legislation, and because members of all political parties are likely going to be supporting it, Manitoba is likely going to be getting anti-scab legislation.

In other words, let is not necessarily look at patting ourselves on the back, although some might say I have been patting us on the back, too. Let us recognize the union workers and the workers across Canada, even non-union workers, and the many contributions labour has made that go far beyond the working environment and wages and so forth. We can think of the social programs we have today and the contributions the labour movement has had in making those become a reality, as well as the endless lobbying it does. I do thank the New Democrats and others who participated in making today possible.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the trade union movement has played a key role over a period of more than one and a half centuries in improving the working life of workers. The trade union movement has ensured that, as the country has industrialized and developed, the standard of living of all the people in society is good because of the agreements it was able to strike with employers.

This legislation affects federally regulated industry, with over 22,000 employers and about one million employees. I am glad the member talked about his experience in Manitoba when the final offer selection could not go through. He is right that, while it gives benefit to one million employees in the federally regulated sector, much more responsibility is with the provinces. I would like to ask him his opinion or his suggestions on how we can influence provinces to take measures in the same way the federal government is now moving.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing is that the federal government has recognized anti-scab legislation is good legislation. The reason we brought it forward is that it is good for Canada, good for our economy and good for the workers. What is good for workers is good for Canada. That is the most important thing.

The second thing Ottawa can do is what we are doing today. We now appear to have a consensus, where all political entities in the House are going to be voting in favour of that. To me, that sends a very powerful message to all the provinces. The reason I brought up the Manitoba situation is that it was because of political partisanship that Manitoba never had anti-scab legislation. It was because of political partisanship that final offer selection was killed. Here, today, we are demonstrating that, if we put the political partisanship aside, good legislation can pass for the betterment of our country and our workers.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. I rise today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. This legislation passed at second reading with support of the Conservatives and was recently scrutinized at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, termed the human resources committee, where I am proud to serve as vice-chair on behalf of the Conservative caucus.

I would like to thank all Conservative members, but in particular I would like to thank the Conservative member for Dufferin—Caledon for his work on this legislation and for attending our committee meetings on this. The human resources committee heard from a wide variety of relevant witnesses to this legislation and to the issue of replacement workers at large. The committee heard from many labour representatives and business industry stakeholders.

We heard testimony from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, whose work will be affected by this legislation. From my observations, there seemed to be a lot of interest from all parties to ask questions and to delve into the work it does and how this legislation could potentially affect its workload and operations. I had a much better understanding of its internal processes once its representative had answered all of our questions.

Many witnesses at committee spoke of the importance of the board. The federal government is responsible for the national Canada Industrial Relations Board. While the legislation before us intends to encourage faster decision-making at the board, ultimately it is on the Liberal government to ensure it is properly operating to resolve labour conflicts that come before it and to meet the needs of those involved. Representatives of both employers and labour said that the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs to be operating faster now and moving forward. In fact, an amendment at committee, which is now in the legislation, would reduce the number of days required for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to render decisions.

One other point I will note in this legislation is that there was an amendment at committee, supported by all members, to move up the coming into force date for this legislation. I would like to bring to the House some of the important feedback we heard from various stakeholder witnesses on Bill C-58. Several points were raised during the committee's study of this legislation. While the Liberals may trumpet this legislation as focusing on replacement workers, they themselves have been replacing workers in government workplaces with Liberal-friendly external contractors.

It is a fact that the government has spent more on expensive external outsourced contractors than ever before. We know this affects workers in many ways. For example, the president of the Customs and Immigration Union appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. He said, when it came to the role of the disastrous $60-million ArriveCAN app, “we believe the goal of the app is to replace officers”.

He spoke to how he believes that, had his workers been listened to during the ArriveCAN process, instead of being replaced by a two-person IT firm at the cost of $60 million to taxpayers, then, “a great deal of what happened would not have happened.”

At the human resources committee's study of Bill C-58, we heard from labour representatives how outsourced contractors and consultants were a concern for their workers. The Liberal government says it stands on the side of labour, yet it actively sidelines its hard-working public service workers and, worse yet, replaces their work with expensive, outside, outsourced consultants and contractors at the cost of billions to taxpayers. We also heard from labour representatives that outside consultants and contractors can be demoralizing for their workers when someone has been hired from outside as an external contractor to oversee these duties or do the same duties.

The Liberals have hired a lot of public sector workers during their time in government. These workers surely have the needed experience and expertise, but then, behind closed doors, the Liberals choose to not trust them with major government initiatives. Instead, they replace their work with that of high-priced, Liberal-friendly contractors and consultants, at the cost of billions of dollars to Canadian taxpayers.

One of the things Bill C-58 would do would be to amend the maintenance of activities process to “encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout”.

Our committee heard from many stakeholders on the types of implementations that typically arise when identifying these essential activities. One of the challenges identified was what qualifies as work that is in the national interest, public safety or critical infrastructure. While these may be easy to identify as essential activities in some workplaces, we heard of some challenges of identifying essential activities in often limited windows of time.

Lastly, while I spoke earlier about the concerning trend of the Liberal government endorsing replacement work through outside contractors and consultants inside the government, I would also like to speak to the government's record of replacing Canadian workers with international workers as part of multi-billion dollar agreements with major corporations.

When the Liberals signed agreements that provided $44 billion in taxpayer money to massively profitable corporations in exchange for building electric battery plants in Ontario, they promised that that would create Canadian jobs. When Conservatives pointed out that these plants would be built with international labour instead of Canadian labour, both the Liberal employment minister and Liberal industry minister tried to downplay the number, saying it would only be a small handful.

Conservatives did not believe the Liberals, and neither did Canada's building trades unions. Union members wrote a letter to the Prime Minister outlining how foreign workers are displacing Canadian labourers at the NextStar construction site, all while 180 local millwrights and ironworkers were unemployed and available to perform the necessary work.

The Canada's Building Trades Union president wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. He said, “Canadian workers are now being replaced by international workers at an increasing pace, on work that was previously assigned to Canadian workers”. He used the word “replaced”.

The Liberal ministers were also not truthful when they said this was only a short-term issue that required foreign replacement workers who had “specialized knowledge”.

As the letter from Canada's Building Trades Union points out, “This is the brazen displacement of Canadian workers in favour of international workers, by major international corporations thumbing their noses at both the Government of Canada, taxpayers, and our skilled trades workers.” The Liberals say that they want to ban replacement workers, yet they have allowed Canadian workers to be replaced in favour of the demands of internationally profitable organizations.

During the labour minister's appearance at committee on Bill C-58, we asked him why he had not demanded a memorandum as part of the deal to guarantee hiring Canadian contractors for the Stellantis plant. The minister said he did not view this as his role, and that it was a matter of provincial jurisdiction, even though potential foreign workers coming to Canada is a federal responsibility.

Workers cannot trust these words or the promises of more jobs supposedly outlined in these agreements with Stellantis or other deals. If the Liberals wanted to regain workers' trust, they should simply make the commitment for Canadian jobs outlined in these agreements public, but they refuse to do so.

At other committees, Conservative members tried to get access to the contracts. However, Liberal and NDP members filibustered to protect the government and prevent workers from hearing the truth.

In addition, Conservatives were pushing the Liberal government to release details of its agreement with Honda Canada on building its electric vehicle operations in Ontario. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure Canadians get all the jobs in this multi-billion dollar project. Yes, the NDP, the party that calls itself a friend of workers, is joining with the Liberals in hiding contracts from Canadian workers and the Canadian public.

Another thing I will bring up with respect to workers is the just transition legislation, which has been renamed. An internal government document disclosed that 2.7 million workers would be affected by the legislation. There is a lot of uncertainty with this. There is concern as to what this means, and it is creating stress for workers in the country, particularly those in the energy sector. This lengthy government document outlines some other potential jobs. However, they are nowhere near the same level for pay and benefits. There is concern among workers in this country, and legislation such as this certainly does not put people's minds at ease.

It is one of the great privileges of my role as the shadow minister for employment, future workforce development and disability inclusion to travel this country and speak to many workers. The input I have received from them has really been very meaningful. I appreciate those conversations and hearing what a lot of their issues and suggestions are.

Conservatives have been supporting the proposed legislation along the way and continue to do so. However, it is clear the legislation before us today alone will not resolve all the issues with respect to workers being replaced in many different ways.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Conservatives for supporting the bill, which would protect the fundamental rights of workers, and for recognizing the important work that trade unions do in promoting a healthy workplace and the safety of employees.

The federally regulated industries that are covered in the bill affect about 22,000 employers and about one million employees. However, the bulk of the working-class population in Canada works in industries and sectors that are provincially managed. What is the member's suggestion on how we can influence the provinces to adopt the objectives of the bill, so every Canadian worker will get the same benefit?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating Bill C-58, which is in the final stages in the House. What I can say in reference to the specific bill, which is for federally regulated workers, is that it has gone through all the processes. I did not speak to all the amendments here today, just due to time, but we did have a number of amendments that came through at committee, that were approved and that are now in the legislation. Therefore, we look forward to moving forward with the legislation so that it can move to the next stages in the parliamentary process.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, workers at Cascadia Liquor in Victoria, and across Vancouver Island, are on strike for fair wages. Now Cascadia Liquor faces a legal complaint for breaking B.C. law by bringing in replacement workers. New Democrats have been fighting for federal anti-scab legislation for decades, but the truth is that the Conservatives and Liberals voted against it. This happened most recently in 2016, when the NDP brought it forward, but there have been dozens of times.

Conservatives pretend they support workers, but we will not see them on a picket line. New Democrats will keep fighting for workers. I joined Cascadia workers on the picket line last week. I will continue to stand in solidarity with them, because powerful paycheques come from powerful unions.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that was a statement, as opposed to a question.

All I will say is that we have Bill C-58 before us here today. As I mentioned, we have been working the proposed legislation through the parliamentary processes. We had very good testimony at committee. We had some recommendations that were approved of through amendments, and here we are today at this stage. That is what we are debating.

As I mentioned, Conservatives support the amended legislation before us.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot from the illiterate Liberal economic policy on the other side with regard to this and other things.

One thing I find fascinating is that the Liberals take one position but do something else. While they have expressed themselves about the bill, they are allowing foreign replacement workers at the Stellantis plant in Windsor. They are so afraid to prove how they have protected Canadian jobs that they will not release their contracts and prove us wrong. They clearly have not protected these jobs, since we have foreign replacement workers. I have read their contracts.

What is the member's view on foreign replacement workers in relation to the bill?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is a concern. I outlined in some of my intervention here how we brought this up at committee. Unfortunately, the minister was very vague. The information the government had initially given on this was that it is a very small handful of people. We found out that this is factually incorrect.

It is very concerning. If the government does not have anything to hide, then it should absolutely disclose what the arrangements are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that, many times, I hear Conservatives bring up criticisms of anti-scab legislation. They say it will extend, delay and make labour disputes last longer and longer; in fact, it is those labour disputes where replacement workers have been brought in that become dangerous, vicious and very long, and they tear communities apart. I think of the Giant mine in Yellowknife, where nine people were killed by people who were frustrated about being replaced without any choice.

Could the member comment on the fact that anti-scab legislation is actually good for bringing people together, for giving workers their right to remove their labour when they feel that they need to put pressure on management to get fair wages and good working conditions? That is the only power they have.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can speak to the legislation that is before us today, Bill C-58. We have had healthy debate in the House of Commons over the legislation. We had a lot of testimony at committee, and it went through all the processes there. We had some amendments that made the legislation even better than it was before. I outlined a couple of them in my intervention.

Here we are today with the proposed legislation, which affects federally regulated industries. As I mentioned, we have supported the legislation and have worked toward making it better, in particular with the labour board. As I mentioned in my intervention, it was good to hear from the board and get a lot of our questions answered as to their internal operations. In that way, we could better understand how they deal with the different applications that come forth and what they are going to do moving forward in order to improve their processing times.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives were playing many games at committee to try to prolong the vote on the legislation. Simply, why have the Conservatives not supported this over the years that the NDP has tried to move it forward? I just want to understand this more clearly.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member sits with me at committee. I am unclear about what she is referencing, because we had committee days that were set to hear from witnesses on this. There were absolutely no delays.

I am really not sure what she is even referencing. We asked witnesses questions. We had clause-by-clause that went very expeditiously. I think the member is trying to create a story that is not there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will stay away from the member's comments that clearly demonstrate the Conservatives' opposition to Stellantis, Volkswagen and Honda. I understand they do not support the federal government bringing those companies to Canada.

However, what confuses me is that I am not sure if the member fully understands anti-scab legislation. It means that, for a company that is in existence in Canada, if a strike takes place, the company would not be able to bring in replacement workers.

That is what we are actually talking about when it comes to replacement workers. I just want the member to give confirmation that this is, in fact, also her understanding.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern about my being informed. Of course I have read the legislation, and I sit on the committee that dealt with it clause by clause. I am very involved in the legislation.

I clearly gave examples of other ways that workers could be replaced, whether through external contractors and consultants, as I outlined in my intervention, or through foreign replacement workers, a term that was actually used by building trades in their letter to the Prime Minister. There are other ways that replacement workers can affect workers. That is what I was referencing in my intervention.

It is a way of replacing workers, although in the legislation, it is a very specific way of deeming it.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it comedic, in some ways, that the bill has been tabled eight times, and the Conservatives are now likely to vote in favour at this final hour. They know New Democrats have forced the vote on this, and they know that it is going to pass.

I find it comedic that the Conservatives are now trying to play it as though they have never seen the bill before. It has been tabled eight times in the House. They failed to vote for it eight times.

What explanation can the member give for why they voted against it so many times?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find comedic is that the NDP member is not acknowledging that he is actually part of the government. He is in a coalition agreement with the government.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Answer the question.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he is tripping me up right now. He will not even allow me to actually answer the question.

This is the trend from this particular member. It is unbelievable that the member is in a coalition yet is actually asking that type of question.

As I referenced, we have Bill C-58 in front of us. That is what we are debating here today and what we will be voting on soon. That is what is before us.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the interventions from the NDP-Liberals are interesting. They go about an inch deep on a lot of issues.

Let me provide a little more colour and give the member an opportunity to do this on the particular issue of foreign replacement workers in Stellantis.

Canada's Building Trades Unions have condemned the government for its use of foreign replacement workers for non-proprietary jobs at Stellantis, such as forklift driver jobs. They have over 138 members sitting at home, unemployed, in Windsor, while the government allows Stellantis to bring in over 900 construction workers, most of them in non-proprietary positions.

Could the member comment on why she thinks that the government talks out of one side of its mouth when its members are in the chamber on legislation, but when it is administering the law, it actually does the opposite?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has quite a trend of doing great photo ops and making lots of announcements, but the follow-through is really not great. We see that time and time again.

I have the letter that was sent by Canada's Building Trades Unions to the Prime Minister. It is very to the point about their concerns, which have not been eliminated or addressed. The government continues to deflect and be evasive on this issue. It is not being transparent.

As I mentioned, a number of my colleagues at different committees, including at our committee, have tried to get information on the contracts in order to protect workers. If the government really had nothing to hide, why would it not be disclosing these contracts?

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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1977, under René Lévesque's Parti Québécois government, the Quebec Labour Code banned the use of replacement workers.

The Quebec labour minister at the time, Pierre Marc Johnson, said the following when the legislation was introduced, and I quote: “The purpose of this measure is not to automatically close factories during a lockout or legal strike, but rather to restore a healthy balance between the parties and eliminate practices that cause tension and violence during labour disputes.... Workers, not companies, are the first to suffer as a result of a work stoppage, and letting the employer carry on as though nothing is wrong during a lockout or legal strike creates a fundamental imbalance between the parties.”

This was a major step forward for workers' rights in Quebec and a defining moment in the history of the labour movement and its struggle.

Today, 46 years later, Bill C-58 seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to ban replacement workers. Bravo, or should I say, “it is about time”?

It is certainly a step forward for the rights of federally regulated workers, but above all, it is making up for lost time. The fate of thousands of workers and their right to bargain and to strike has been, continues to be and will continue to be undermined by this inexcusable delay, at least until the bill comes into force 12 months after receiving royal assent.

The effects of this injustice are still being felt. Quebec workers live under two systems. Federally regulated workers in Quebec who are currently in a dispute are paying the price for this injustice. Think of the port of Quebec workers who have been locked out for nearly two years. The employer is using replacement workers. No one is talking about it. No one is working on fixing this because it is business as usual. This is unacceptable.

Think of the Vidéotron employees in Gatineau, who are also locked out. In that telecommunications sector, thousands of jobs are being outsourced to call centres overseas. They too have been locked out for several months, and replacement workers are being used.

At the port of Sorel‑Tracy, the United Steelworkers went on strike for 12 months, and scabs were brought in.

I could continue to list all of the injustices and shameful practices that employers have engaged in with impunity because, to date, the Canada Labour Code has not been changed to remedy this injustice.

Unions have been calling for anti-scab legislation as part of the Canada Labour Code for a long time, and so has the Bloc Québécois. Over the past 33 years, there have been 11 bills, the very first of which was tabled in 1990 by the dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Time after time, the Liberals and the Conservatives have blocked the Bloc Québécois's bills. I myself introduced Bill C-276 in this Parliament in May 2022.

The fight was waged by unions and the Bloc Québécois, with constant prodding and the strength of our convictions. The NDP will take credit for that. It was certainly part of that struggle too and, indeed, we commend its work, just as we commend that of the Department of Labour and the leadership the minister has shown.

However, there is a “but”, and it is a big “but”. Unfortunately, we have to wonder, given the way the bill has been crafted, with the proposed implementation deadline, for one, whether there is any real intention for this bill to actually see the light of day or whether it is just window dressing, meant to look good.

Everyone knows as well as I do that there is a clear difference between fact and appearance, just as there is a difference between declared values and practised values.

From the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has condemned the fact that the initial bill provided for an 18-month coming-into-force period following royal assent. Given this time frame and the fact that we have a minority government, it is no wonder that we are questioning the intent. We proposed an amendment in committee to repeal this delay, proposing that the bill come into force as soon as it receives royal assent. This amendment was rejected by all parties, because the NDP and the Liberals had agreed in advance to propose a 12-month delay. However, the vast majority of the unions we heard from said that there was no explanation for the delay and they too wanted the bill to take effect right after royal assent. That is what it means to protect workers, and the Bloc Québécois stepped up.

When we began studying the bill, we announced that we also wanted to improve it in committee and move fast to close the loophole to ensure that the nonsense of using scabs is banned for good. We proposed carefully chosen amendments put forward by the unions. Among other things, these amendments aimed to include federal public service employees and thus correct a major omission. The government, as an employer, has excluded its own employees from the scope of the bill. We proposed a relevant amendment, but it was ruled out of order because it would amend another act. In principle, however, it is very unfortunate that the bill does not apply to federal government employees. This error needs to be corrected and I hope it will be corrected.

We also made amendments to amend or repeal sections that allow exceptions to the prohibition rule. It may seem complicated. Strikebreakers are prohibited, but there are exceptions. Among the exceptions, I would particularly mention employees covered prior to the bargaining notice. The employer is permitted to use these employees as replacements for striking employees in the event of a dispute, lockout or strike.

It would even be possible for an employee in a bargaining unit of the same employer—but in a different local—to be called upon to replace workers or colleagues during a strike or lockout. This makes no sense whatsoever. The unions have rightly denounced this. If the law is supposed to be consistent, how can certain categories of workers, such as subcontractors and independent contractors, be excluded from this restriction? That sort of thing is prohibited under Quebec's law.

We also proposed an amendment to provide for an investigation mechanism that exists under the Quebec code. If the government wants to impose sanctions, if it wants to be tougher, it has to give the Canada Industrial Relations Board the means to do its job and investigate if the employer breaks the law. Employees cannot do that. Employees who are on strike or locked out cannot enter the factory or their employer's premises. An investigator would have to be called in. This amendment was also rejected.

We had also proposed an amendment to reduce the time limits for the Canada Industrial Relations Board orders so as not to unduly interfere with the strike. All these amendments were rejected.

We are disappointed that these proposed improvements were rejected. They are essential for ensuring the consistency of the bill's objective of fully recognizing the fundamental right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike. However, we can be proud that we put them forward, stood by our convictions, and listened to and supported union demands in the fight for workers' rights.

If the past is any indication, an opportunity to reform the legislation is unlikely to come around again any time soon. This supposedly historic bill deserved more care and attention to achieve its objectives. I hope that history will vindicate the struggle of workers and finally rectify the injustice they have laboured under for so many years.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members have long held a similar position to ours on support for workers. I thank them for supporting workers.

Can the member tell us about the impact that this bill will have on people?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member must know, a minimally effective bill would at the very least ensure that federally regulated workers have the right to free bargaining and the right to strike.

This bill also seeks to prohibit the use of scabs and will help maintain industrial peace during negotiations. It should also help shorten the length of disputes. That is significant, considering what is happening at the port of Quebec, where federally regulated Quebec workers have been locked out by their employer for two years now. No one cares because the employer is using scabs, which is allowed. This will make a major change.

It is important to always keep in mind that the right to strike and the right to free bargaining are fundamental charter rights. The Liberals should normally support those rights and enforce them. This will change everything, but it could have changed everything sooner.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the legislation and its potential impact, and we can talk about those things that fall within the federal responsibility, I like to think that its passage would send a very powerful message. The province of Quebec, which the member made reference to, has had anti-scab legislation for many years now, as does the province of British Columbia. The national government is now bringing forward the proposed legislation and getting the support of all political entities inside the chamber, it would appear; ultimately, this could influence other provincial legislatures to do likewise and bring in anti-scab legislation. Could the member provide her thoughts on that issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, every province has its own jurisdictions. Every province decides on the social progress it wants to make with respect to labour law. In Quebec, that is it.

After 46 years, the federal government is now saying it is pleased with what is happening. It would have been even better if the government had the courage to include federal public servants in the bill. It would have been even better if the bill had come into force as soon as it received royal assent to eliminate the possibility of any further use of replacement workers.

There is still some work to be done here.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I think that my colleague is second to none in the House when it comes to labour law.

Now, during the initial debates, many Bloc Québécois members asked the government why it imposed this 18-month delay after royal assent. We kept being told that the question needed to be asked in committee and that we would work on it in committee. What the committee managed to do was reduce the delay from 18 months to 12 months.

Does my colleague know why, unlike all other bills that come into force immediately following royal assent, this one comes into force 12 months later? In committee, did the members have the chance to get insightful, if not intelligent, explanations for this delay?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked me if we had gotten any intelligent explanations. I will not accuse anyone of being unintelligent, but I questioned the Minister of Labour and Seniors quite regularly, and we were told that the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs time to ensure that the law fully comes into force.

I am not entirely satisfied with that answer, because one would think that between the bill drafting stage and royal assent, the government would be able to apply all the resources needed to start the work.

I still have my doubts, because there is clearly a big difference between introducing a bill and hoping that it will pass.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Her speech was quite enlightening about this situation, meaning the lack of will to implement the bill and ensure that it can come into force in the short term.

As I do not have much time, I will be brief. The Quebec government settled this issue in 1977, almost 50 years ago. That is half a century. The first time someone decided to try to update the federal code to match Quebec's was in 1989. That someone was my colleague Louis Plamondon, the dean of the House. I was still in diapers in 1989.

Can my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville explain why we have been talking about this same issue for so long, why it has yet to be resolved and why there is still a chance that it will not get resolved?

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Before recognizing the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville, I would like to remind the member that he is not to refer to members of the House by their first or last name, but only by their position or the riding they represent.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that there are probably a number of reasons, but it takes political will. For both sides of the House, after this many years, the system is all right. They can live with it.

In terms of labour law, there are no examples to cite here. Governments have introduced an increasing number of special laws that undermine workers' rights.

There was no political will to change the rules of the game. Will this time be different? Will the rules change? Workers who are currently in a dispute, on strike or locked out under this system know full well that the legislation will not apply to them or resolve their dispute. They are already fighting for future workers. The legislation will only come into force 12 months after it receives royal assent. In the meantime, the federal government will continue to enforce the code, which does not prohibit the use of replacement workers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member describe the other social benefits that workers, in particular unionized workers, have brought to our country, the province of Quebec, and so forth, through the advocacy of good, solid social programs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I hope he knows the answer.

Since it began, the labour movement has not only advanced workers' rights but it has also helped society as a whole to progress, with greater social justice, greater equality and greater fairness. The unions did this not just for workers' rights but for all citizens. History shows that.

In Quebec, these struggles were important. Progress was made during the Quiet Revolution, when the socio-political context was difficult and there were bitter disputes. The unions played a part in and contributed to the evolution of society and established—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville. She has more than exceeded her time.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Burnaby South.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is a powerful day, a day that I never thought I would actually see in the House of Commons, after eight efforts over the years in my time to bring forward legislation to protect workers from anti-scab actions by employers to deny them their fundamental rights. We are here today to bring this into law.

On my way here, I learned that, today, the International Court of Justice has called out Israel for the brutal genocide that is happening in Gaza and Rafah, calling on Israel to end this horrific campaign.

This is a day of justice. I think of Martin Luther King Jr.'s beautiful statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” That slogan has been used many times over the years, but what people do not often reflect on is that the bending of that arc of justice is done in the face of immense opposition. It is done in the face of threat. It is done in the face of harassment. It is often done in the face of violence. However, the arc of the moral universe will move, inevitably, toward justice.

I was thinking about that, because my mom called me last night. My mom is a hardrock miner's daughter. In fact, her father, Joe MacNeil, started in the Cape Breton coal mines, back when Dominion Steel used to use the army against the coal miners in New Waterford and Glace Bay. They had a classic tactic. They would make the men and the families sleep in tents in the winter to break them. They called them communists, radicals and extremists. There was nothing radical or extreme about fighting for a living wage. What was radical and extreme was the capitalists who would use the army, putting a machine gun in the church steeple in New Waterford to try to intimidate working people.

However, in that moral universe, the arc bent relentlessly toward justice, because there is a moment when people just cannot put up with it anymore and will not put up with anymore.

Mom called me last night and told me how inspired she was. These are dark times, but my mom always sees hope. She said to me that she was so inspired to see the young people marching out of those university commencements, university students in the United States who were putting their careers on the line, facing serious harassment, being called all kinds of hateful things by an establishment that wants to shut them down. My mom said that young people get it. They are not going to sit silent in the face of a genocide.

Again, what bends toward justice is bending in the face of the harassment and the intimidation and the false threats that these young students are somehow extremists and radicals. There is nothing extreme about speaking up against the mass killing of children. What is extreme is going along with it, like last night. When the International Criminal Court has called for indictments against Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes, the government and its key ministers would be drinking wine and schnaps with Israeli leaders here in Ottawa. We can say that we are friends. We are. Canada has a long, deep friendship with Israel, but friends do not let friends commit war crimes.

My mom said that she was so inspired by these young people who are standing up, walking out and marching in the streets. My mother said to me that she was going to get her walker and go down and walk with them. My mother has never been to a demonstration in her life, but she sees the mark of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley is rising on a point of order.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is relevant to the bill we are actually discussing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind everyone about relevancy.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to come talk to my mom. She would give him a few lessons in moral justice. The reason why I am talking about my mom is that my mom is a hard-rock miner's daughter. My mom always said to me to do the right thing throughout my life. Do we know what my dad said? He said to never cross a picket line. That was the family that we grew up in. When my mom calls me about justice, I listen, and I think the hon. member should listen about justice too, because my mom is not an extremist. My mom stands up for what is right. We are all called to stand up for what is right, which brings us to this bill.

Year in and year out, workers have had to fight for their basic right to be recognized. If they are facing injustice or poor pay, they have a right to withdraw their labour. Nobody ever gave the union movement or the labour movement anything in this country, certainly not any Conservative who has ever lived.

In my community, the fight for the eight-hour day was won at the Coniagas Mine in 1914. The miners who went on strike at the Coniagas Mine knew what the consequences were. The consequences were that half that workforce was fired and their families were evicted from their homes. None of those men were radicals or extremists like the Conservatives of the time called them, but they had reached a point where they were not going to put up with the brutal conditions underground anymore. They knew what the odds were. They knew that, if they stood up, many of them would be thrown out on the street, their families not able to be fed. They did it for the bigger vision, the bigger right. The arc of the moral universe may be long and it may take a long time, but it bends inevitably toward justice.

I think of all the strikes and labour battles that we have seen in the north and some of them have been brutal. They are stories that are told in our region. There was the 1958 Inco strike, which one of my old-timer friends, Mike Farrell, told me was the Mine Mill union's Stalingrad. Families lost everything in that fight. They lost homes. They lost their cars. They lost their marriages. When I was walking with the copper and nickel miners in 2010 during the Vale strike, their grandchildren told me that their grandfather and grandmother were in that 1958 strike and that they were there today to live up to that obligation, because the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, because people know what is right.

What I see from Conservatives is that they tell me that we should not speak up about international things and just talk about what is at home. That is not the Canadian way. That we should not get involved in something that has nothing to do with us is not the Canadian way. The Canadian way is that we bend toward justice because it is the right thing.

We are at this moment in Parliament where we may finally pass anti-scab. I have to say that I have my suspicions. If a Conservative government comes in, does one actually think Conservatives will ever defend workers? There is not a chance. We are going to see them stand up and see whether they stand for the right thing, because this is the moment.

I was talking about the strikes in the north. There is nothing more bitter than when someone brings in scabs to tell a family that they are going to starve them out, that they are going to bust them, that they are going to use the cops and use the state to beat workers down and take away the one right that we have as workers, the right to either supply our employment or take it away if we are not being treated with justice. We have had many of these horrific battles.

It was mentioned earlier about Peggy Witte, one of the most horrible corporate leaders ever, who was lionized by the Canadian mining industry and who led to the nine men being killed in Yellowknife's Giant Mine. What they also do not tell us about what Peggy Witte did was that she robbed the pensions of workers from my region at Pamour mine, and she got away with it.

We have to have laws that protect workers and protect them in strikes so that they can engage fairly. On this day, when we are here at the final moment to maybe get past the finish line with anti-scab, while the international community is now calling out the genocide in Gaza, we have to think about how powerful it is to be at this moment. Yes, the struggle is long, the struggle is hard and the struggle does not end easy, but we have to always bend that power toward justice, fairness and the right of the individual, whether in their union or as a civil human being, to live in dignity. That is what we are here for.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to the legislation earlier, but one thing I would like to amplify is that the federal legislation is fantastic, we are glad to see it and it will hopefully receive the support of every member in the House. However, I am thinking of the impact in the rest of the country in terms of other provincial legislatures. British Columbia and Quebec already have anti-scab legislation. The potential message that it sends to other provinces and territories is that having anti-scab legislation is okay. We do not need to be fearful of it.

Could the member could provide his thoughts on the potential of this legislation to influence provincial jurisdictions, where more workers would benefit by having anti-scab legislation?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we see that commitment to workers' rights at the federal government level to withdraw their wages and not have to deal with the private security companies, the scab buses coming in and the violence that ends up on the picket lines. I have seen the abuse of workers' rights in the mining communities I represent. When we establish a norm, it will bring both sides back to the table quicker. When mines have not stockpiled a year's worth of nickel and decide they are going to use scab labour and starve their out opponents, that destroys not just the relationship but communities in the long term. People leave and do not put up with it. This is a good way to settle this.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Timmins—James Bay on his excellent speech. It was one of the most inspiring speeches we have heard in support of the cause of workers. If there is anything that needs to be recognized today, it is that the NDP always defends workers in its speeches. I am glad to hear that.

However, the Bloc Québécois had proposed an amendment in committee to ensure that the bill would come into force immediately after being passed, not a year later. In his speech earlier, my colleague referred to people who stop earning wages when they are on strike, so they have a hard time putting food on the table and paying their mortgage. Then they see scabs right under their noses, doing their jobs in their place, which is particularly frustrating. I was wondering where the NDP's fine speeches were when they voted against our amendment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

Obviously, I am concerned about the Liberals' plan for the coming into force of the bill. This is clearly a problem for workers across Canada, especially with the possibility that the next government will be Conservative. The Liberal government must fulfill its obligation to implement this bill now for Canadian workers.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was reflecting on my colleague's use of the term “arc”, and that arc does not bend on its own. In many cases, we have to force it to bend. While I can take pride, as a New Democrat, today for having brought the House of Commons to this moment, I recognize that with this effort and the many efforts of NDP MPs over the years, we did not arrive at this moment alone. It was those in the labour movement that fought for this change. They were the agitators, the people who forced MPs to arrive at this moment.

Can my colleague reflect on that incredible activism of the labour movement that brought the House of Commons to where it is today?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will share with my colleague that when I was in his region on Vancouver Island, I visited a graveyard that had been desecrated. The graves of Japanese families who worked in the mines were desecrated in the Second World War. There was a plaque on the wall saying miners had rebuilt the graveyard as best they could. The plaque was made by the nickel and copper miners who belonged to Mine Mill Local 598 in Sudbury. The miners heard about what had happened to the Japanese and raised money in the 1950s so that people on Vancouver Island would know that their comrades were there.

That is the arc of justice. It bends because people stand up and say they are going to make it bend, and that is what we are here to do today.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really honoured to be able to follow after my colleague and dear friend, the member for Timmins—James Bay. This is a really special occasion. I want to talk a bit about where I am speaking to you from today, which is the Union Centre in Winnipeg, after having just met with representatives of the Manitoba Federation of Labour. What is so poignant about that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly has a prop in the view right behind him. If members want, the next time I speak, I will bring in a big poster that says the message I want to say and put it right up here behind me. The member has to be called out of order, and he cannot speak until he removes the prop.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled on this in the past. There have been MPs speaking from a variety of locations.

I would ask you to ensure that Conservative MPs respect the member's speech and respect the bill. If they are in favour of anti-scab legislation, there should be no problem with allowing the speech to continue. It is absolutely appropriate, as you have ruled in the past.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

While I appreciate that, there have been a number of occasions in the House, especially during the time that we had a lot of online participation, when we ruled on not having props in the background, not having words in the background and in some cases not having flags in the background. Therefore, maybe I can ask that we get rid of the wording in the background. That is perfect. There we go; when we ask, it shall be done.

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Conservatives are upset because I was going to reference the Winnipeg strike, actually, and there are pictures of the Winnipeg strike behind me, which actually capture the story even better than the words do. I want to talk about why the strike is so important. Maybe this is why the Conservatives are upset: They do not like it when the power of workers comes together to fight back and defend working people.

What happened in 1919, in the very same time in we find ourselves in right now, which is mid-May to late June, 30,000 workers, basically the entire workforce of Winnipeg, and in a lot of ways all of Manitoba at the time, came together and shut down the city and effectively shut down the province, fighting for fairness for workers. They were protesting the unfair work conditions, the poverty and specifically about issues like collective bargaining.

It is so poignant that I am here in Winnipeg at the Union Centre, having just spoken with representatives of the Manitoba Federation of Labour and its president, Kevin Rebeck, whom I want to thank for all of his hard work. I also want to thank the MFL for all of its hard work.

It is so poignant to be speaking to the bill today in this place, from this spot. I have to say what an honour it is that today our Bill C-58, which we fought for, would ban scabs once and for all at the federal level. It is a historic result of the hard work of New Democrats, and I have to say this would not have happened were it not for New Democrats' forcing the government to do it.

I also have to acknowledge that this would not have happened were it not for labour and for unions that have long led the charge for anti-scab legislation, and I want to thank them. I also have to acknowledge that it is an accomplishment we have achieved that we are debating this right now in the House and that the Manitoba NDP is also going to move forward with it. I want to salute and acknowledge that.

I have to say that it has been a long time coming. New Democrats have been fighting for decades for it to happen. In the past 15 years, New Democrats have tabled anti-scab legislation eight times. That is eight times that our unions, labour and New Democrats have fought for this. The last time it came up for a vote, in 2016, the Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to vote against it. The leader of the Conservatives voted against banning scabs eight times in the past, so it is clear whose side the Conservatives stand on. However, with the supporting guidance of our labour allies, union leaders and activists, we have finally secured this moment.

The legislation is about giving more power to workers. It is about giving power to workers so they can negotiate a fair deal and so we can ban scabs once and for all. Let us talk about what that means. Banning scabs is about giving more power to workers and less power to the big bosses and to CEOs. It is about ensuring that when a worker makes the difficult decision to go on strike, their job is not stolen by scabs. That is what this is about.

Banning scabs at the federal level is unprecedented. As with many things, Quebec was forward-thinking and already legislated this at the provincial level. This federal bill, which was negotiated by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is inspired by the Quebec legislation, but goes even further.

Many Quebeckers working in federally regulated businesses will now have more power thanks to the NDP. It is not thanks to the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives or the Liberals, but thanks to the NDP. If our party had been in power, the bill would have been even better, but we were forced to work with the Liberals. Throughout these negotiations, the Liberals sided with the big union bosses. We sided with labour and I am proud of the work of my team.

This is an historic moment. Banning replacement workers will give more power to workers and less power to the CEOs. Workers will have more power to negotiate better salaries. During this inflationary period, that is what workers need.

This bill, Bill C-58, is about making sure that workers get the respect they deserve, which is needed now more than ever because we know times are tough. We know that workers are getting gouged by corporate greed, corporate greed at the grocery stores, corporate greed when it comes to corporate landlords jacking up rents and corporate greed in telcos that charge Canadians some of the highest fees in the world for their cellphones and for Internet services.

Workers are fighting back. We are seeing workers organizing across this country. We are seeing it recently in Starbucks and in Amazon. We are seeing it in the public and in the private sectors. Unions are on the front line of fighting inflation because that is what unions do; they fight for working people, and New Democrats do as well. This anti-scab legislation is one additional tool to protect workers from getting ripped off and exploited by big bosses.

However, I want to acknowledge that this is not the only thing New Democrats have fought for, specifically for workers. We have forced the federal government to bring in two additional measures already. We have made it the law of the land in Canada that federally regulated workers will get 10 paid days of sick leave, which was never the law before, and we made that happen. We also forced the Liberal government to bring in a sustainable jobs act, which would ensure that workers have a seat at the table, by law, and that anytime we discuss the future of jobs in our country, we talk about training opportunities for workers that go through unions and that we create good union jobs with good wages as we look towards a net zero economy. That is what we established with the sustainable jobs act, which again, is something that Conservatives tried to fight against every step of the way.

Speaking of fighting every step of the way, I want to be very clear. When I say New Democrats made this happen, it is because we had to force the Liberals, we had to force the Prime Minister, to act. We know that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party voted against anti-scab legislation just a few years ago. Without unions and without the New Democrats, nothing happens; none of this happens. New Democrats had to force the Prime Minister to bring in this legislation after decades, and even after forcing the Liberals to bring it in, they missed the mark. We had to fight to strengthen the legislation for workers with amendments. Earlier this month, we amended the bill to speed up the implementation from 18 months to 12 months. Workers will be protected sooner because of that.

We also made sure that we closed loopholes to prevent any attempts of employers from skirting these laws. As well, we specifically made sure that workers will not be exploited by employers who try to use employees from another workplace, or use students or volunteers as scab workers. This is about ensuring that employees can strike for better wages without their bargaining rights being threatened. Big bosses will have to now show up in good faith to bargain at the bargaining table and to negotiate in a manner of good faith. However, imagine what we could have done if the out-of-touch Liberals were not in the way. Strong anti-scab legislation would already have been in place. Corporate greed and big bosses would be in check.

I also want to talk about the serious risk presented by the leader of the Conservatives. The leader of the Conservatives likes to cosplay that he is there for working people, but we all know that the leader of the Conservatives and the Conservative Party want to wage a war against unions, a war against workers, in direct contrast to what this bill, Bill C-58, is all about. The leader of the Conservative Party would bring back anti-union legislation, as he did when he was in cabinet with the Harper government. He would bring in laws to make it harder for workers to fight for better deals. In 2013, the leader of the Conservative party said, very boldly, “I am the first federal politician to make a dedicated push toward this goal”—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have to apologize to the hon. member, but the 10 minutes has gone by in a flash. Maybe he will have an opportunity to finish his speech in response to some of the questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where the leader of the New Democratic Party is. In fact, if he went a bit further down Main Street, he would see that we have the iconic image of the streetcar sculpture. It is a very significant icon because of its meaning with respect to the 1919 general strike, not only for Winnipeg but also, I would suggest, for all of Canada. It is really ironic in the sense that, today, we have anti-scab legislation, and that streetcar was perceived as coming in with replacement workers, so I really appreciate the background.

It looks as though the legislation will get all-party support in passing, if not today, then possibly Monday. Whenever it happens, it happens. Does the member agree with me that it sends a very encouraging message to other jurisdictions? Hopefully, for example, the Province of Manitoba will quickly have anti-scab legislation on the books too. Could the leader of the New Democratic Party provide his thoughts on the federal legislation we have before us today?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had always hoped, and I know labour and union leaders had always hoped, that establishing anti-scab legislation at the federal level would be used as a tool to inspire and inform other provincial jurisdictions to bring in similar legislation. For New Democrats, union leaders and labour leaders, the goal is to ensure that nowhere in our country, in no jurisdiction and at no level, will workers ever be threatened with scabs stealing their jobs. That is ultimately the goal of New Democrats, and we want to make it very clear: We want workers to be able to negotiate fair deals and, if they choose to have to go on strike to fight for that fairness and fight for fair wages, to be able to do so without the threat of a scab stealing their job. That is what I hope to achieve with the bill. New Democrats and the labour movement hope it will inspire other provincial jurisdictions to bring it in.

However, with Manitoba, rest assured, there is already a strong commitment from the premier to bring in anti-scab legislation. They have already tabled it, and it will be moving forward.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the member for Burnaby South for his speech. However, he did not give much credit to the Bloc Québécois. I would like to point out to the member that there are still holes in the bill. For example, federal public servants are not among the workers covered by this bill.

There is, however, one aspect that interests me above all others, and that is the fact that the bill will come into force only 12 months after royal assent. The Bloc Québécois had proposed an amendment to bring it into force immediately after royal assent, as is the case for other bills.

Could the member for Burnaby South explain how this 12-month delay is reasonable, considering that we are in a minority government and, therefore, the bill could die on the Order Paper?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we have the New Democrats to thank for this situation. There would be no anti-scab legislation without the pressure we were able to exert through the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal government. Without us, workers would not have this protection. This is really the fruit of our effort and the labour movement's effort. We are very grateful for the work done by the labour movement.

As far as implementation is concerned, the Liberal government wanted an 18-month delay. We forced it to reduce that delay to 12 months. Let us be clear: Without the pressure that we brought to bear, this bill would never have been introduced and we would never have had this debate. It really is thanks to us that workers in federally regulated businesses in Quebec and across the country will receive this protection.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, powerful paycheques come from powerful unions.

I am proud to be a New Democrat today. I thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for their consistent efforts in making what we knew was possible a reality. For 15 years, New Democrats have tabled this piece of legislation. Eight times we have seen Liberals and Conservatives join forces to make certain that workers are not more powerful.

This is a remarkable day for workers. I thank workers and all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party for this work. However, I am nervous and scared that we could possibly see a Conservative government try to roll back some of these protections and try to force workers back to work, as it often does when it joins forces with the Liberals, with back-to-work legislation.

Could the member speak to how important it is to have powerful unions?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to thank my colleague for that great question, and he is right to be worried.

We know that the Conservatives have voted against back-to-work legislation the past. Their leader voted against it eight times in the past. He is in favour of back-to-work legislation. He has opposed anti-scab legislation. He has fought card-check legislation. He has voted against the minimum wage, not once but twice. He vowed to cut workers' pensions and to slash employment insurance to save half a billion dollars for CEOs, which would leave workers out to dry. We know this is a legitimate concern.

We believe very strongly that we not only need to have this anti-scab legislation in place, but also need to be very clear that strong unions have to be supported so that they can fight for good wages for workers. The only way workers get fairness is with strong unions.

Let us be very clear. The New Democratic Party is the only labour party at the federal level. We are proudly founded by unions. We will always defend unions' ability to fight for workers to ensure they get fair wages and fair working conditions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for this historic vote, decades in the making, I would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from May 24 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 third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-58.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #774

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)