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.

[Lana Payne, National President, Unifor]

Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and my fellow panellists, one of whom I will disagree with vehemently on his statement on Bill C-58, but that's not why we're here today.

As you know, I'm Lana Payne, and I'm the national president of Unifor, Canada's largest union in the private sector, representing over 320,000 working people across this country. I'm joined by our director of research, Angelo DiCaro, who is also our in-house expert on trade.

I want to thank you for this invitation to participate on behalf of our members, many of whom—thousands and tens of thousands of them—work in industries affected and impacted by trade.

Let me start by saying that Canada's trade policy is a key aspect of our country's broader industrial strategy. Sadly, since the NAFTA, Canada has suffered from a lack of ambition regarding industrial development. This lack of vision has had governments sleepwalk into a series of unhelpful free trade arrangements and agreements with the voices and concerns of workers largely ignored and dismissed.

All of this changed when the NAFTA was renegotiated. The government deserves credit, not for salvaging a deal that caused immeasurable harm to workers but for presenting a bold, progressive economic vision for this country that underpinned its negotiating strategy with workers' voices at the forefront. This was a welcome break from the past.

The study you've undertaken ahead of the scheduled six-year review of the CUSMA is necessary and timely, and we thank you for it. U.S. officials aren't mincing words right now when they tell us not to get too comfortable ahead of these talks. Long-standing U.S. complaints, whether on Canada's supply-managed dairy or on digital trade, are on the radar. The USTR has already held consultations on the CUSMA auto trade. Canada cannot approach this review on its back foot.

We must remind Americans how interdependent our industrial economies have become, but we can't shy away from communicating our own concerns. There are obvious gaps in the CUSMA and our trinational trading relations that this review can and should address. I'll share some of the ones that are top of mind for Unifor.

With regard to forestry, the softwood lumber dispute has dragged on for eight years, impacting Canadian firms with unjustified tariffs. This sector is currently facing economic and serious headwinds, including mill closures and job losses, and these trade penalties are adding pressure to an already struggling industry. They must be removed.

With regard to aluminum, the monitoring of imports that circumvent and undermine the benefits of our decarbonization efforts must be strengthened. Aluminum is a strategic metal and should benefit from the same processing requirements that apply to steel under the auto rules of origin—you've just heard about those.

With regard to labour rights, much is being done to clean up Mexico's labour system. The CUSMA's rapid response mechanism is helping remediate and deter labour rights violations and also renew Mexico's democratic trade unions. This mechanism works, and it must be extended, including to workplaces in the U.S. and Canada, and I'll tell you why.

A recent union vote at a Mercedes plant in Alabama, in the United States, was strained by threats and intimidation towards workers, not unlike we've seen at Mexican car factories. Canada should demand a full investigation into this trade-distorting behaviour, especially since Canada has a deal to supply Mercedes with lithium, cobalt and other critical minerals. Canada should also clearly signal to the U.S. its intent to revisit a proposal to deem right-to-work laws a violation of the CUSMA labour chapter.

In the auto sector, there is an opportunity to link our trade and industrial strategies. Labour value content rules were set at $16 U.S. per hour in 2020, but they have not increased since. These labour rates must be updated along with the CUSMA's current list of core auto parts to reflect new EV technologies, like e-motors.

Canada must discuss with the U.S. the raising of its WTO tariff on light-duty vehicles, which currently sits at 2.5%, hardly enough to ensure compliance with the CUSMA's complex rules of origin. Canada must also take seriously the threat of Chinese EV imports, which are subsidized through forced labour, excessive subsidies, tech theft and other means. Canada must be vigilant in guarding against transshipments and prepare itself to take action in conjunction with the United States.

Unifor will obviously continue to monitor this review that you're conducting and will remain available for further discussions. We look forward to answering any questions you may have for us today.

Thanks very much.

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

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

Since 1871, CME has been helping manufacturers grow and improve the well-being of their workers and the communities in which they operate. We are pleased to participate in your study on the 2026 review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

Unlike Canada's other trade relationships, which are primarily about competing for market share, our partnership with the U.S. and Mexico is about working together to compete with the rest of the world. We talk about Canada and U.S. trade, but that trade is really us making things together. Members of this committee will know better than most that the North American manufacturing bloc is world class in the quality and the cost of the things that it makes.

Building on NAFTA, CUSMA has succeeded in providing a solid foundation for North American trade by strengthening our regional economic ties while modernizing the provisions that govern them. While Canadian manufacturers consider CUSMA a success, Canada has not yet realized the full potential of the agreement in the first four years. There are under-utilized features, such as the competitiveness committee and the good regulatory practices committee, that have the potential to help propel Canadian and North American manufacturing even further forward.

For Canada's industrial economy, deeper North American economic integration is not only desirable but a necessity to compete at a time when the global economic and security environment is shifting beneath our feet. There are specific trade irritants, as there always have been and there always will be, that Canada must and should continue to try to address, both through the agreement itself and through sustained and serious bilateral and trilateral engagement with U.S. and Mexican decision-makers.

The ever-present buy American provisions that accompany U.S. federal investments stand out. Just earlier this week, I was speaking with a small manufacturer of large industrial mixing tanks. They do all of their manufacturing in Canada, with two-thirds of their sales into the U.S., which includes government procurement for municipal water treatment systems. They estimate that, because of the most recent “Build America, Buy America” provisions, they've lost approximately 300,000 to 400,000 dollars' worth of business, and they expect that trend to continue.

Unjustified tariffs on softwood lumber products, automobile rules of origin, Line 5 and Keystone pipeline issues, Mexican energy policies and even the ban on GMO corn have all come up and lingered since CUSMA came into force.

We also know that China's neo-mercantilist approach to international trade in the North American market will, as Catherine just alluded to, loom large in this review.

CME is supportive of efforts to improve Canada's trade remedy and import monitoring systems to defend from unfair practices, and we recognize that Canada is going to have to confront the rules-of-origin issues that have strong bipartisan support in Washington.

In addition to these, Canada has its own domestic issues that its CUSMA partners may describe as irritants, which we don't think can be avoided in the context of the upcoming review. One issue that we hear about most commonly from our CUSMA partners and manufacturers, specifically in the United States, is the increase in labour-related supply chain disruptions in our country. That includes, of course, last year's B.C. ports strike and the St. Lawrence Seaway strike, along with the threat this year of a stoppage at the port of Montreal, as well as a potential Canada-wide rail stoppage.

Transportation is the connective tissue that holds the North American trading relationship together. CME recommends that Canada do something to show it is serious about preventing these disruptions. In addition to the immediate direct harm that they impose on Canadian manufacturers, workers and their families, these disruptions undermine North American supply chains and the reputation of Canadian manufacturers with their cross-border partners and customers. CME was disappointed earlier this week that the House of Commons passed Bill C-58, which is legislation that will make this problem worse.

As we approach the 2026 review, Canada will also be faced with ongoing questions regarding its investments in national defence. As we saw from members of the U.S. Senate last week, we should not be surprised if decision-makers in the U.S. do not bifurcate their consideration of CUSMA and other major bilateral irritants, including Canada fulfilling its NATO commitments.

U.S. trade considerations are increasingly being driven by economic, national and supply chain security considerations and this trend will continue no matter who is in the White House. Notwithstanding these challenges, Canadian manufacturers are fortunate to be the participants in and beneficiaries of a regional economic relationship that is envied around the world.

As Canada navigates the next several months in the lead-up to the review, Canadian manufacturers will continue to work closely with governments, our colleagues at the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers and the Confederation of Industrial Chambers of Mexico to offer our support to preserve and promote a trade agreement that is, by and large, working well.

As part of those efforts, in November of this year, just a couple of weeks after the U.S. presidential election, CME will be hosting manufacturing leaders and senior decision-makers from across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, just a few blocks from here in Ottawa, at a North American manufacturing summit. This will provide an important inflection point for our sector to take stock of the agreement and the political forces influencing it, and to reaffirm our joint commitment to continue to build the manufacturing ties between our countries.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Canada Labour Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, 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 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.

[Norma Kozhaya]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The pronunciation was very good.

Good morning, everyone.

The Quebec Employers' Council, the CPQ, would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment in the context of its study on federal regulatory modernization.

Reducing the regulatory and administrative burden is a major concern for Quebec employers. The CPQ believes that an overly rigid regulatory regime can interfere with businesses' ability to boost their performance and productivity and create wealth. It's clear that, in many cases, well-intentioned regulations can lead to unintended and undesirable consequences.

In addition, administrative tasks and paperwork consume a significant amount of managers' and business owners' time, and that directly impacts operations. Long wait times for project approvals, duplication and complex processes are all irritants and barriers to investment. Streamlined procedures and more efficient regulations would encourage investment and improve business productivity and competitiveness at no cost to the government. That's why the work you're doing here is so important.

If we look at any single bill or set of regulations, the procedures and their impact may seem reasonable. Taken together, however, they're a heavy burden for businesses. That's why a big-picture perspective is essential. It's important to consider the cumulative effects of the entire administrative burden on businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, or SMEs, and to do everything possible to lighten that burden. Regulatory regimes must prioritize efficiency, results and predictability. I have a few specific recommendations along those lines.

For starters, the government's approach to developing regulations must be improved by ensuring consultation periods and timelines that optimize stakeholder participation and involve independent experts.

Once new regulatory and administrative requirements and laws passed by the government are implemented, there must be thorough and continuous analysis of their actual impact on businesses and a mechanism to put forward suggestions for necessary reductions to the regulatory and administrative burden.

In addition, impact studies that accompany new legislative or regulatory provisions must be based on input from the sectors concerned and on-the-ground realities.

The government must also provide businesses with basic guidelines to facilitate compliance and consistency and ensure greater predictability.

Harmonization and avoiding duplication among departments and agencies and between multiple levels of government is essential. In budget 2023, the federal government said it was prepared to work with the provinces and territories to enhance federal-provincial co-operation to achieve the “one project, one assessment” objective, but that has not yet materialized.

The government should also eliminate the need to repeat certain applications and procedures for identical situations or when a company has demonstrated exemplary compliance in the past.

The federal government must also work with the provinces to remove more interprovincial trade barriers by facilitating mutual recognition of standards and regulatory harmonization. It should follow the example set by the Government of Quebec, which committed to introducing a specific bill every year in favour of regulatory and administrative relief and adopted an ambitious action plan to reduce this burden. The plan includes quantifiable red tape and cost control targets.

Equally important is following the one-for-one rule, which states that regulators must remove a regulation every time they introduce a new one. This rule covers regulation only, but laws, policies and guidelines are having an increasingly significant impact on both businesses and individuals.

Finally, we must avoid new counterproductive regulations that are not based on a proven need.

Consider Bill C‑58 on replacement workers. This may not be part of the committee's mandate, but we still wanted to bring it up.

My colleague and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. We may also have a few examples to share about temporary foreign workers or child labour in supply chains.

Thank you.

[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”—

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, for the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

moved that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, as amended, be concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by my hon. colleague across the aisle, with whom I work regularly. With gas at about $1.50 a litre in Ontario, if I am not mistaken, it is a lot cheaper than it is in Alberta, where Premier Danielle Smith unilaterally hiked the cost of gasoline by 13¢. She did not provide, of course, the very substantial rebates on the price on pollution we have put on and that the Conservatives would take away.

Of course, that was not his question. Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-58, concerning replacement workers, at report stage and at third reading. On Monday, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑70 on countering foreign interference, which is already a strong response to the issues being investigated by the Hogue commission. We will hear from the Minister of Public Safety at second reading of Bill C‑70.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Finally, as is only proper, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) later today:

(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;

(b) members speaking during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and

(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to present.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25: Vote 1 under Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Votes 1 and 5 under Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization, Vote 1 under Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, and Votes 1 and 5 under Department of Employment and Social Development”.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Wade Sobkowich, Executive Director, Western Grain Elevator Association]

Thank you.

The Western Grain Elevator Association is a national association of grain companies that handle over 90% of our country's bulk grain shipments. Grain transportation makes up roughly 20% of total railway revenue each year, making the WGEA members some of the largest users of Canada's railways and marine ports. Our thanks to you, Madam Chair, and the members of the committee for inviting us on this very important topic.

Canada's ability to compete in global markets hinges on our ability to rail product from the interior of our country to tidewater ports. The efficacy of rail service is therefore a critical component to the success of our supply chains. Air travellers in Canada often experience plane cancellations and delays, missed connections, lost luggage, exorbitant charges and lacklustre travel options. Now imagine there was only one airline available at an airport. That's our reality in rail service.

Above all else, financial accountability and enhanced competitive access regulations for the railways for service performance failures is required. Monetary penalties payable to the shipper for poor service would incentivize railways to put plans in place to avoid them. In addition, measures like extended interswitching that inserts competition creates a threat of loss of business that will drive better rail service.

We also need to recognize the importance of marine ports and vessel traffic to the national economy. With a growing crop, we face the challenge of moving more product each year. This is not a situation of trying to find ways to do more with less. In practical terms, we need to find a way to have more vessels ready to load in the port of Vancouver primarily. It's Canada's largest working port designed for commerce and must first and foremost be viewed through that lens.

Instead, we have Bill C-33 that is going to create a regulated system to restrict the presence of vessels in Canada's ports. Regulators and parliamentarians currently see the presence of vessels in ports and the operation of terminal facilities as a negative. On one hand, we're told Canada wants the economic benefits from exports to worldwide markets, but on the other hand, we're told there are too many vessels in ports and that activities associated with normal vessel loading are a problem.

Bill C-33 only addresses the symptom of vessel wait times, ignoring the root cause of inadequate rail service. If the federal government intends on passing legislation that positively impacts supply chains, it must primarily look at railcar supply from railways versus railcar demand from exporters on a week-to-week basis and introduce legislation that disciplines railways to meet that demand. Opportunity for Canada's exports must be set by customers, not by railways.

Labour disruptions for railway and port services are also hampering Canada's ability to reliably deliver to customers. Canada is about to face a strike on both national railways at the same time, and the consequences are going to be devastating. When strikes or lockouts occur at railways and ports, huge swaths of the economy suffer, not just those in the bargaining process. In a competitive environment, customers can find other options to minimize disruptions. Since railways and ports in the grain sector are singular options, the same threat of loss of business is not present. There are no competitive alternatives.

Whether it's wheat and oats for bakeries or pasta and breakfast cereal manufacturers, or canola and soybeans for vegetable oil, our products are the basis for everyday staple foods. Even short disruptions of supply chains can affect product availability and price, something the pandemic has demonstrated the world over. In this respect, the flow of essential goods necessary for the maintenance and preservation of Canada's domestic food and feed supply and global food security is required even when labour disruptions occur. The requirement for a maintenance of services agreement to be in place prior to a labour stoppage would become automatic with Bill C-58. We believe that parliamentarians should explicitly require these agreements to include movement of essential food products.

The national supply chain task force identified that over the next 50 years, investments of $4.4 trillion in marine and transportation infrastructure will be required to meet the projected growth in population. There is a critical need to step up investment in port infrastructure in Vancouver, especially to address fluidity, particularly with the addition of tanker traffic. There is also an undeniable need for Canada to scrutinize its regulatory and permitting framework, which is unnecessarily rigid, redundant, antiquated and inhibits commercial investments to improve supply chains.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

As the chair, I must rule on the admissibility or inadmissibility of amendments.

This amendment seeks to add a new section 4.1 to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, which is not amended by the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act is not being amended by Bill C-58 it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

That's my ruling.

Are we good? One can challenge it.

Madame Chabot, there can be no discussion. You can only challenge my ruling.

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

There is nothing unexpected in this amendment. Nor was there anything earlier.

The purpose of the amendment was to add an investigative process to Bill C-58 like the one in the Quebec legislation.

The unions appeared before us to explain how important it was to be able to investigate. Otherwise, during a strike or lockout, the unions would be completely unable to determine whether or not the employer is contravening the act. An investigative process is therefore important.

Amendment BQ‑4 would allow the Canada Industrial Relations Board to investigate the place of employment together with the union to determine whether the act was being complied with.

This is not just something copied and pasted from the Quebec act, but rather wording adapted from the Canada Labour Code with the assistance of the law clerk.

I believe that this amendment would be a welcome addition to Bill C-58.

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

Bill C-58 bans employers from using contractors as replacement workers. It's clear.

We won't be supporting this amendment. We just want to make sure that Bill C-58 is clear and doesn't lead to any more issues as we are going down the pike. We thought hard on this one and we can't support it.

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

On the subamendment that we proposed, we heard in testimony before the committee that the union is advocating putting a broad ban on replacement workers. They ask that employers be banned from bringing in other employees to work at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place. They also said they wanted to close loopholes by banning volunteers and other non-standard replacement workers. We agree with that part of what our colleague has put forward.

When employers bring employees from other work locations, it could undermine the prohibition by taking the focus away from the bargaining table. When there is a loophole, such as using volunteers, people lose faith in the law, and we don't want that. We want Bill C-58 to work, so we agree with that portion.

However, there are issues with the way the amendment is written when it comes to location. That's why we're happy to support this amendment with the subamendments we have proposed. In the second part, “family member” is difficult to define, and this would affect only the smallest business, but we understand why unions have concerns about volunteers, and that's why banning these volunteers would also create an additional check on the system so that there's no ambiguity about who will volunteer and who gets paid.

Basically what we're looking at is removing “family member” as defined. We agree with most of it, save and except a family member, such as somebody's wife who would come in during a strike. Most of our workplaces under the federally regulated system are larger, so I believe it's covering most of what the NDP put forward, save and except a family member. That's just the subamendment. We agree with everything, save and except including “family member”.

[Ryan Cowling]

Adding paragraph (c) to proposed subsection 94(4) would broaden the scope of the prohibition on replacement workers under the bill. Currently, under Bill C-58, the employers are only prohibited from using their employees if they were hired after a notice to bargain was given in the particular dispute that's in question. What this would do, by my reading, is remove that caveat and say that an employer cannot use any employee to do the work of striking or locked-out bargaining unit members.

[Ryan Cowling]

Thanks, Zia.

I'll try to state it as clearly as possible, but it can get a little esoteric within the industrial relations framework.

Essentially, a dependant contractor is a person who's not in a direct employment relationship with an employer. They don't have a contract with an employer. What they have is a dependence on the employer, both economically and in terms of their working conditions, that makes them so similar to employees that part 1 of the Canada Labour Code treats them as employees.

Under part 1, the definition of “employee” explicitly says that it “includes a dependent contractor”, so any time part 1 of the Canada Labour Code refers to employees, it's also referring to dependant contractors. Similarly, in Bill C-58, where you see the word “employee” appear—such as in the ban on replacement workers in proposed subsection 94(4) and in the ban on employees in the bargaining unit crossing the picket line and performing work during a full strike or lockout in proposed subsection 94(6)—that would also include dependent contractors that are in the bargaining unit.

I hope that clarifies this.

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

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, committee members. We will begin.

The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum. Everybody is appearing in the committee room, so we did not require any sound testing.

I will remind you before we begin about the steps that have been advised that committee members must take to avoid sound issues for the translators. Please keep your earpiece in the allotted spot when you're not using it. If you're not going to use it at all, it is best to keep it unplugged.

As you know, the room layouts have been adjusted to give more spacing to avoid any possible sound issues. Again, keep your earpiece on the allotted location.

Today's meeting is taking place pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 22, 2024. The committee is beginning its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations.

Before I introduce departmental officials, I would advise members that you have the choice to speak in the official language of your choice. If translation services are interrupted, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while they are being clarified.

Appearing in the committee room today, from the Department of Employment and Social Development, are Zia Proulx, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workforce; Katherine Chan, senior policy analyst, workplace and labour relations policy division; and Ryan Cowling, manager, workplace and labour relations policy division. They are here to address any questions the committee members may have related to the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

With that, again, thank you, members.

I apologize; somebody forgot to order breakfast, or we didn't pay for the last one and we're not getting any more. It will be corrected. Ms. Gray has agreed to pay for it if we can't find the funds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being here. I would have liked to hear your opening remarks, but you can send it to us in writing.

During the study of Bill C‑58, we had the pleasure of hearing from representatives of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. They told us about their staff. I found that quite troubling, personally. I found that the team was quite weak, not in terms of quality, but in terms of the number of employees.

Have you set aside the necessary resources to make Bill C‑58, which is ambitious and which we hope to be able to improve and pass, enforceable?

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

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues.

Minister, thank you for coming.

I will say that it's shocking but great to see this newfound support for Canadian unions and workers from the Conservative Party. It's shocking, but I'm glad to see it.

I want to talk to you, Minister, about Bill C-58. As you know, we just studied Bill C-58. We did hear a lot of great testimony from witnesses that I think really cut through the smoke, if you will, and brought clarity to a lot of myths, particularly the misconception that unions and workers want to strike, that it's what they want to do and that this legislation would potentially impact that.

We had Sean Strickland in from Canada's Building Trades Unions. He said that anybody who suggests that unions want to strike, that it's what they want to do and that they can't wait to get on the picket line, is “not in touch”. They're not in touch with today's economy and labour realities.

We know that this legislation will actually bring people to the bargaining table. You've always said, through many strikes, that the best deals are done at the bargaining table. We know that these are the best deals that happen for workers. I'm wondering if you can expand just a bit on Bill C-58 and why it is so important, and then, in contrast, how right-to-work legislation, which seems to be favoured by the Leader of the Opposition, could be detrimental to workers.

Thanks, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Thank you everyone.

That will conclude the first hour of the committee's meeting this morning. It will also conclude the witness testimony on Bill C-58.

We'll suspend for a few moments and then go in camera for the business portion of this meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Carey, Madame Brazeau, Mr. Ghiz and Mr. Smith, for appearing this morning on this important piece of legislation.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe this is the last time we'll be meeting with witnesses for our study on Bill C-58.

In order to be historic and do what it's supposed to—prohibit the use of replacement workers—the bill actually has to come into force. It makes no sense that the bill won't come into force until 18 months after it receives royal assent. That doesn't even include how long it will take for it to receive royal assent. What a joke to tell unionized employees who work for Videotron, the Quebec City port and other such employers that, even though the bill was passed, it won't come into force for 18 months. If the government is serious about this legislation, it has to allocate all the resources required for implementation.

Workers' right to strike, a fundamental right protected by the charters, is at stake. However, it will be a long time before all these legislative improvements come into force, improvements that will lead to disputes truly being resolved. As the only explanation, the minister stated clearly that the time frame had been recommended by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We find that totally unacceptable.

What's more, of course strikes cause disruptions, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. It's important to respect the parties to the dispute. When employers use replacement workers, as Videotron has, they aren't respecting the issues. During a lockout, the employer can organize, contract out the work and move call centres outside the country. That is the reality. On top of that, good jobs are lost.

Mr. Ghiz, we are well aware of how important the telecommunications sector is, as are other sectors that deliver essential services. However, does that justify telling workers that it doesn't matter if they want to exercise their right to strike because they can be replaced anyways?

[Dave Carey]

We haven't, not to that degree. I can say that the agriculture sector does have provisions. The longshoremen are prohibited from striking because over the years it was used as leverage, and then Minister MacAulay, in labour, in 1998 amended that. Again, I think the agriculture sector's view is similar to the telecoms' view, which is not about replacing workers. It's about allowing current staff within, say, the railways, to continue to keep the lights on.

I think our view on Bill C-58 is that you do need to take a sector-by-sector approach when allocating through these sorts of blanket bills. We don't have a position on collective bargaining. We respect the unions' abilities to do things. However, we are seeing Canada's reputation challenged globally, with the current legislative framework we have, about our ability to get agriculture products to market.

Agriculture is one in nine jobs, 7% of GDP and $99 billion in exports last year alone. I guess our concern is that BillC-58 would more instability with Bill , but again, our comments would be within the agriculture sector and also within the abilities of the railways, the grain companies and the ports to use current staff, whether they're management or non-unionized, to keep the lights on. Replacement workers can't jump on a railcar and run the thing. They just can't. That's where major labour instability is. We are concerned about the trend of labour instability in our grain supply chains.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

We also heard from one of the witnesses, Charles Smith—I think last week—who is a professor out in Saskatchewan. He had a very compelling argument that traditionally in today's society, employers have always had a bit of an advantage over employees. He talked about how industry groups in general have shied away from bills like this and made the argument that a bill like this could prolong strikes. He presented some evidence in regard to Quebec and B.C. having this type of legislation in place and made the argument and presented it to us that there would actually be fewer strikes when legislation like Bill C-58 is put in place.

Mr. Carey, has your industry group done any research to support the claim that a bill like Bill C-58 could potentially cause more disruption, versus the claim Mr. Smith has made, which is that it actually reduces disruption by creating “industrial peace”, as he referred to it, and creating a better balance between employers and employees?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today as we study this important and historic bill.

I have a comment to start. Mr. Ghiz, your presentation was rather bold, if not provocative. You said that Bill C-58 sought to address a problem that did not exist. I take issue with that.

The dockworkers at the Quebec City port have been locked out for the past 18 months, and every day, they see people taking their jobs and pay. Situations like that aren't limited to ports. They also happen in telecommunications. Sitting behind you, Mr. Ghiz, are four Videotron employees who have been locked out for nearly six months in Gatineau, and replacement workers have been brought in to do their jobs. This is a real problem. In fact, I kindly encourage you to go up to them after the meeting, to talk to them about their situation and find out what the labour dispute is like for them. They have been out on the street for nearly six months.

Ms. Brazeau, you said you couldn't presume what Parliament would decide with respect to the bill. I agree, but since all parties in the House voted in favour of Bill C-58 at second reading, it will probably end up being passed, unless the tide turns and things change significantly.

Is the Canada Industrial Relations Board getting ready for the bill's potential passage?

[Ginette Brazeau]

The board looks at complaints and requests submitted to us. If we receive a request regarding replacement workers, we have fairly broad investigative powers. We have officers in the regions to whom we can delegate the authority to gather information or evidence in the field, in the workplace, that can then be presented to the board and that the parties can rely on to make their views known.

So our powers already include an investigative component. However, if Bill C‑58 passes, we're thinking about how we could use those powers more broadly or differently compared to what we're doing now.

I should point out that we do this kind of investigation in response to a complaint. So there has to be a complaint at the outset.

However, if you're referring to the department's investigative powers, I must say that we already have a model for health, safety and labour standards whereby the department conducts an investigation and the files on which an appeal is based are then forwarded to the board.

I think that would be an additional step in the process.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Brazeau, I will echo the others and say that the Canada Industrial Relations Board plays a major role in the balance of power and labour relations in Canada. Thank you for your testimony.

I'm surprised to learn that you deal with cases that fall under all parts of the Canada Labour Code. In Quebec, occupational health and safety issues are handled by a separate commission. I think it would be nice to see that at the federal level as well. I've already said that the Canada Labour Code needs some love and that it should be strengthened. Treating health and safety separately would be one improvement to make, although that's not proposed in Bill C‑58.

This bill is desired and desirable. All the labour organizations that have appeared before our committee so far have reiterated the fact that, to be able to fully implement it, additional resources are needed on the board. That's a role for government. I hope that the government will walk the talk and that, because we want to pass a robust bill to protect the balance of power and give full meaning to the right to strike, the government will be able to allocate the necessary resources to ensure that the bill does that.

I will come back to delays, because it's an important issue, but first I'd like to point out that many witnesses have also told us that there should be an investigative mechanism similar to the one provided for in the Quebec Labour Code that allows workers to enter the workplace to ensure that replacement workers are not being used. It must be said that unions cannot enter the workplace to see whether an offence has been committed or not.

Is that a desirable avenue, in your opinion?

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

I've heard from both the union side and the employer side that you're very well respected.

What advice would you give to employers and unions to get ready for Bill C-58?

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

Yes, in order to.... How is it now, I suppose, and how would Bill C-58 change those timelines, potentially?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

There's certainly no additional funding that's being put forward to deal with the potential increase of cases from C-58. You haven't heard anything about that, have you?

[Ginette Brazeau]

It's very difficult to give an estimate of the actual workload that will result from Bill C-58.

Maybe I can point to the chart for this. If you look at chart 3, which considers the number of matters related to maintenance of activities that are currently dealt with by the board, you will see that in recent years, we've had between 25 and 30 cases related to maintenance of activities. We deal with those, chart number 2, on average in 150 days, 130 days.

You can see that in 2023 and 2024, 14 of those cases were withdrawn. What happens is that because of the current provision in the code related to the maintenance of activities and the timelines that apply, they file with us. Then they ask us to hold the matter in abeyance, because they want to focus on collective bargaining. We don't deal with those matters. The parties reach an agreement, and then they withdraw this application on maintenance of activities, so although we have 26 applications, we don't deal with half of them. Now, as I read the legislation, there will be a lot more pressure for us to deal with these applications.

[Robert Ghiz, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Telecommunications Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss Bill C-58.

When Bill C-58 was introduced, we expressed our concern that the bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist and that for the reasons given to the committee by FETCO last week, it should not become law.

While our position in this regard has not changed, if Parliament decides to pass the bill, it must first be amended to address an issue that should concern all Canadians, including members of this committee.

Canadians rely on telecommunication services every day, and the security and reliability of networks have never been more important. To quote the Government of Canada:

Not only do [telecommunication services] support a wide range of economic and social activities, but they support other critical infrastructure sectors and government services, and are crucial for emergency services and public safety. They are fundamental to the safety, prosperity, and well-being of Canadians.

The same is true for broadcasting and television services, which play a key role in ensuring public safety in Canada.

These services are essential for Canadians. In the event of a power outage caused by a natural disaster, vandalism or another factor, consumers expect their utility and its team to work tirelessly to restore those services. That's exactly what's happening today.

The prohibition on the use of replacement workers in Bill C-58 would significantly weaken service providers' capacity to restore services and protect their networks from disruption during a strike or lockout.

While some argue that requiring employers and the bargaining unit to establish a maintenance of activities agreement before a strike or lockout will mitigate the negative effects of the prohibition on replacement workers, this viewpoint is flawed.

While section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code requires the parties to continue the supply of services to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has previously ruled that section 87.4 does not apply to a potential interruption of telecommunications services during a strike or lockout. As well, the limited exemptions to the prohibition on replacement workers under the proposed amendments to section 94 of the code are not sufficient to ensure the continuity of telecommunications and broadcasting services during a strike or lockout.

Mr. Chair, I know you are intimately familiar with the devastation that hurricane Fiona caused in Prince Edward Island and surrounding provinces. Imagine if telecom workers had been on strike when the storm hit our province. Under Bill C-58, the affected telecom providers could not use striking workers with the necessary experience and skill to protect and restore services or hire temporary replacement workers or contractors. This would have been unacceptable to Atlantic Canadians and should be unacceptable to Parliament.

Experts predict that 2024 could be one of the most active Atlantic hurricane seasons on record. Scientists say that they are bracing for what could be another year of devastating wildfires across Canada, and cybersecurity threats, as we know, are on the rise. Compromising our telecommunications and broadcasting systems' reliability, resilience and security in the context of a strike or lockout undermines the extensive and detailed steps taken by the government under its telecommunications reliability agenda. It also runs counter to Canadians' expectations that these critical services will be there for them when they need them most.

While we respect the right to strike, there must be a balance between workers' rights and the public good. We ask the committee to recommend to Parliament that Bill C-58 be amended to ensure that during a strike or lockout, service providers, their employees and the bargaining units must continue providing services necessary to repair and restore telecommunications broadcasting services and to perform critical maintenance work.

In fact, we know from a recent Nanos poll that 95% of Canadians say that it is important that telecommunications services remain available without disruption and that eight in 10 Canadians think that telecommunications companies and their employees should be required to continue to provide the services needed to prevent and repair disruptions even when there is a strike or lockout.

The amendment would be like one made by Parliament to ensure that labour disputes in the longshoring industry do not interrupt the movement of grain vessels.

We've provided the committee with wording for the suggested amendment and a couple of other amendments that we ask the committee to please consider.

We would be happy to discuss these during the remainder of the meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Canola Growers Association to speak to you today during your study of Bill C-58.

The CCGA is a national association governed by a board of farmer-directors and represents Canada's 43,000 canola farmers on issues and policies that impact on-farm profitability.

I recognize this isn't the House agriculture committee, so I'll briefly provide an overview of our sector.

Canada typically produces 20 million tonnes of canola annually and exports over 90%, in three forms: seed, oil or meal. These products are exported to 50 countries, and in 2023 our exports were worth $15.8 billion. Canada's the world's largest producer and exporter of canola, and our industry supports 207,000 jobs and contributes $29.9 billion to the Canadian economy annually.

Canola travels, on average, over 1,500 kilometres from the farm where it is grown to an export position. There is no alternative in long-distance transportation of our products across the continent: We are completely reliant on Canada's two class I railways to get the majority of our product to market, both now and into the future.

Transportation of grain is one of several commercial elements that directly affect the prices offered to farmers. When issues arise in the supply chain, the price farmers receive for their grain can drop, even at a time when commodity prices may be high in the global marketplace. When rail service is disrupted, the worst-case scenario is that space in grain elevators and process facilities becomes full, and then grain companies stop buying grain and accepting deliveries from farmers. This can occur even when a farmer has an existing contract for delivery, potentially straining their ability to have cash flow into their operations. This is the major reason that western Canadian farmers have such an interest in rail transportation: It directly affects individual farmer income, and beyond that, the ability of Canada's railways to move grain to export critically affects Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of canola to the world.

Today's grain supply chain is predicated on having the right grain in the right place at the right time. There are a lot of moving parts in this complex system, including trucks, inland collection points, railways, port terminal facilities and marine vessels. All are needed in order to move canola from the Prairies, where it is grown, to international customers, where it is demanded. In such a complex system, in any given year there will inevitably be incidents and events that negatively impact the fluidity and on-time execution of the supply chain. Weather, infrastructure damage and other unforeseen events are often outside our influence or control. In Canada we have enough risk to our supply chains from natural causes in any given year, so ones of our own making must be avoided.

Broadly speaking, elements we do have control over are labour agreements and organized work environments. However, we have observed ongoing and concerning levels of instability between our class I railways and their labour in recent years.

Currently our industry, and Canada, is bracing for the possibility of both class I railways having labour disruptions as early as next month. Even if a strike is avoided, we are concerned that as the May deadline approaches, there'll be significant impacts on service for weeks or months to come.

We saw a similar situation in March 2022, when one of our class I railways approached the brink of labour action with one of their labour groups. Ultimately, a shutdown was avoided at the eleventh hour, but there were still ramifications for supply chain fluidity from even the threat of labour action. In advance of labour deadlines, the railways began curtailing operations, sending a wave of logistical disruptions and delays back through the supply chain that took weeks to rectify. In November 2019, a class I railway did have labour action that affected operations for a full week, with effects reverberating for months. Given the complexity of this system, it generally takes six to seven days to recover for every one day of service disruption.

I ask you, as parliamentarians on this committee, to consider these labour issues from the lens of our international customers and competitors. Over the last decade, our customers have seen strikes or threats of strikes, both of which disrupt the grain transportation system and affect Canada's ability to reliably supply our customers. This has led to Canada building a reputation as an unreliable supplier and trading partner.

Labour-to-management issues naturally reside between those parties. It is a tenuous balancing act that is enshrined in law and evolving jurisprudence. It is not our intention, as a farm organization, to suggest a solution for these issues but rather to highlight the second- and third-order effects when labour issues do arise. We want to produce more, grow more and expand our exports to drive our economy's growth, and labour is needed to get our products from the farm gate to an export position.

Looking forward, we clearly see further rising demand for our agricultural products, both domestically and internationally. At the end of the day, farmers will not be able to capitalize on the opportunities from increasing demand or trade agreements without a reliable rail and labour system that grain shippers and our global customers have confidence in. Bill C-58 will likely compound the significant issues that our sector is already facing through labour and supply chain uncertainties.

[Ginette Brazeau, Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board]

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to appear before you this morning as part your study of Bill C-58.

I intend to speak about the board and its work, its responsibilities and its structures, and explain the impact that Bill C-58 is likely to have on the board’s operations.

To this end, I provided a reference document entitled “Information Document relating to the Canada Industrial Relations Board”, which I believe was distributed to the committee members.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal that deals with labour relations and employment complaints and requests. We offer mediation to help the parties reach a settlement and, when necessary, we adjudicate disputes between them.

The board consists of a chair, five full-time vice-chairs, and three part-time vice-chairs. There are also six members representing employers and employees in equal numbers. The panels appointed to hear and decide cases are made up of one vice-chair and two members. Members therefore cannot sit alone to decide cases.

The board is responsible for applying and interpreting various statutes, including the Status of the Artist Act, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and, of course, the Canada Labour Code, which in itself comprises four distinct legislative regimes: Part I, which relates to labour relations; Part II, for health and safety matters; Part III, which deals with minimum labour standards; and Part IV, which deals with an administrative monetary penalty regime.

Traditionally, the board was responsible for part I of the code—industrial relations. In 2019, amendments were brought to the code that made the board responsible for all parts of the code. At that time, the code was also amended to allow the chairperson to appoint external adjudicators to help us deal with certain types of cases. You will see from chart 1 in the document that was distributed that since those changes came into force in 2019, the board's caseload has doubled. We went from about 500 cases a year to 1,000 cases a year.

At the time these changes were made in 2019, there was funding identified for the board's new responsibilities. An amount of $3.4 million was approved for this purpose. However, it's important to note that the board does not have its own appropriations and does not have autonomy in the administration and management of all of its affairs. The board's financial and human resources are allocated and managed by the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, the ATSSC.

The ATSSC was created through legislative amendments in 2014. At that time, amendments were also made to remove the chairperson's role as a chief executive officer of the board and her authority to direct and manage the board's resources, budget and other administrative matters. Any funding that is identified or approved for the board is in fact allocated to the ATSSC, which exercises all the financial authorities and in turn determines how best to allocate the funding to the various tribunals it supports.

As it relates to the approved funding in 2019, my observation is that the amount of $3.4 million has not consistently flowed through to the board. Our initial budget allocations over the last five years have not seen an equivalent increase. You will see that in chart 4 in the document.

This unpredictable allocation of funds makes it difficult to plan and address the board's caseload in a stable manner. This past fiscal year, for example, I was unable to assign any new files to external adjudicators for a period of eight months as there were insufficient funds allocated for this purpose. As a result, the board has accrued a significant backlog of cases and is experiencing increased delays in processing cases. You'll see that in chart 2.

The board's ability to respond effectively and in a timely manner to the disputes that come to us requires sufficiency of funds and the ability and flexibility to swiftly align or realign human and financial resources as the board sees fit in order to respond appropriately.

All this is to say that if Bill C-58 passes, it will be challenging for the board, with its existing structure and resources, to deal with complaints of replacement workers on an expedited basis or for the board to address all maintenance of activities matters within 90 days without further impacting other types of cases that come to the board.

I'm aware that the committee will have questions for me regarding the timeline for coming into force. In order to be prepared to meet the quick turnaround times that are required by this bill, there are two areas that will require attention.

The first is the resources. I've asked for additional vice-chairs to be appointed to the board and for additional resources to support the work.

The second area is the need for new rules and regulations to be able to review and deal with these matters within 90 days. That will entail development of the rules, consultations with our stakeholders, drafting and adopting of those new rules, and communication materials to ensure that people who come before the board understand the new process we want to put in place to deal with these matters.

As you can see, this will involve considerable work and several steps.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this subject.

Thank you.

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

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 109 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, although all of the committee members and witnesses are here in the room.

I will go over a couple of comments.

You have the option to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation is available using the headset in front of you. Click on the language you choose to participate in.

I will ask you to keep your earpieces away from the mics, if you use them. Otherwise, they can cause popping that can hurt the interpreters.

Please direct all of your questions through me, the chair. Wait until I recognize you by name before you proceed. To get my attention, please raise your hand.

If there's a breakdown in the interpretation services, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.

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

For the first hour, we will have the final group of witnesses who will appear for the review of Bill C-58.

Appearing today in the room is Ginette Brazeau, chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Welcome, madam.

From the Canadian Canola Growers Association, we have Dave Carey, vice-president, government and industry relations.

From the Canadian Telecommunications Association, we have Robert Ghiz, president and chief executive officer, and Eric Smith, senior vice-president.

Before we begin, I do have to acknowledge that Mr. Ghiz's father was responsible for convincing me to enter politics and public life back in 1982.

Welcome, Mr. Ghiz.

Each of you will have five minutes or less to give opening remarks. We'll begin with Madame Brazeau.

Chairperson, please go ahead for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

There's been a motion to adjourn debate on the motion. I'm going to call a vote on the motion to adjourn debate only.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Debate is adjourned on this particular motion.

We are running out of time. Will committee members indulge me for a moment or two for some committee business?

Currently for Thursday, April 18, the committee plans to hear from witnesses on Bill C‑58 for the first hour. For the second hour, we will go into committee business to conclude the consideration of the draft report on artificial intelligence. I hope for the indulgence of the committee to get to the second version as well, so committee members should be prepared to do that. Again, that's so we can create some time in June to get to housing.

Also be prepared, if we get through version 2 of the artificial intelligence report, to look at version 1 of the volunteerism study report. You will have it tomorrow. I would like to begin version 1 of the report on volunteerism in that last hour.

I'm know I'm being very ambitious, but I'm getting some nods from Mr. Aitchison.

I just wanted to give you a note on that. That's what my plans are for the second hour. Also, I'll have to get approval for five budget items to cover the scrumptious lunches we've been having at committee as well as to invite committee members.

With that, thank you for your time. We did conclude the majority of the discussion on Bill C‑58 today, so thank you.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

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

Thank you.

There's fearmongering out there, whether on Twitter or in statements. Along with 70 other labour experts and professors, you urged the government to adopt Bill C-58. You went on about what was happening with legislation in Quebec and British Columbia. I'm sure members from the NDP and the Bloc would agree that, again, there doesn't seem to be any kind of economic collapse happening as a result of it.

Could you expand on that fearmongering about economic collapse? As soon as a strike happens or appears it will happen, there are right-wing interventions that say it has to stop, sometimes even before it starts. Could you please comment on that?

Perhaps I'll let my union friends make a comment on that as well.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Last week, there were some questions for FETCO at the end of the meeting about claims that 911 or other emergency services may go down due to this legislation. I just want to be clear on that. Its March 12 communication entitled “The Urgent Need to Amend Bill C-58” says, “The absence of these workers during strikes could lead to severe disruptions, endangering everything from home heating and emergency communications to the delivery of life-saving medical supplies and the refueling of commercial aircraft.”

An emergency communication isn't explicitly 911. I'll point out that twice, on February 20 and February 21, FETCO shared an op-ed by Robin Guy that asserted, “during a strike replacement workers would not be able to fix problems. Customers in an affected area could be without even emergency services—including access to 911, be their need ambulance, fire department or police.”

As discussed, and it seems like our witnesses had agreed with me, not only would 911 services be protected by the maintenance of activities process, but Bill C-58 would actually improve this process to protect the health and safety of Canadians and prevent serious environmental or property damage.

I just wanted to clear that up, because we ran out of time as we were finishing.

My first question is for Professor Smith. We heard from FETCO and other corporate groups that raised concerns around Bill C-58 about how it might increase the frequency of strikes. In November 2023, you published an article in the Monitor entitled “Anti-scab legislation does not increase strikes, despite corporate propaganda”.

Professor, could you speak more about your findings after Quebec and B.C. tabled legislation banning the use of replacement workers? I noticed that you ran out of time.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thanks very much.

One thing that left me sort of scratching my head when I looked at the legislation is that there doesn't seem to be a good definition of what a contractor is versus a dependent contractor. I think that falls into one of the loopholes that everyone is talking about today.

Do you think “dependent contractor” has been redefined effectively in Bill C-58 for the CLC? If not, what would you do to make that definition better?

Does anyone want to take a stab at that?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to the committee and I'm new to this study. I was going through and reading some of the testimony from before, and one thing that jumped out at me was what Lana Payne said when she was here. She said, “No country has achieved shared progress and prosperity for working people without strong unions and strong collective bargaining laws.” I'm assuming everyone here agrees with that. I want to say that I agree with that one hundred per cent as well.

I told the previous panel a personal story. My son works in the construction industry. He worked for two private companies. Of course, he was treated well. Now he works for a large company in a union and his life is incredibly better. His pay is better. Safety is better. The benefits and opportunities are better. His life has dramatically improved because he is in a union.

I fundamentally believe that unions create better-paying jobs for Canadians. That's what I want to come to with my questions on this bill. I want everyone to know that.

When I look at the bill, one thing I look at is the section on fines when there is an offence. Clause 12 of Bill C-58 would add a new section, 101.1, to the CLC to establish that if an employer contravenes the rules on the prohibited use of replacement workers, there could be a $100,000 fine “for each day during which the offence is committed or continued.”

Taking out how long these things might take to be deliberated upon, do you think that fine is sufficient? Where do you folks stand on that?

Everyone can take a turn answering.

[Donna Hokiro, President, United Steelworkers Local 1944]

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today to talk about this vital piece of legislation.

I'm Donna Hokiro, president of Local 1944 of the United Steelworkers. Our local union represents over 5,000 members across Canada, mostly federally regulated in the telecom sector.

Allow me to start with this: No one goes on strike for the fun of it—nobody. It's never a decision that union members take lightly. Arguably, it's the hardest.

Importantly, when the employer decides to lock out workers, they don't consult the union and they threaten the very livelihood of their workers—our members. Strikes and lockouts have always had significant impacts on workers. The use of scabs escalates an already difficult situation and has the potential to impact an entire community. It turns workers against each other, neighbours against neighbours and sometimes even members of the same family against each other.

Our local union has experienced such situations in the past. Familial brothers who both worked at Telus came to blows when one crossed the picket line while the other honoured it. This one act of scabbing by one of the real-life brothers affected their family, so much so that Christmas, birthdays, other holidays and special occasions could not be celebrated together. Countless relationships and friendships have never been restored.

This affects our members and your constituents. That's why we have been fighting for anti-scab legislation for decades.

Anti-scab legislation already exists in British Columbia and Quebec. It has been proven that bans on scabs reduce the number and length of labour disputes and restore the balance in collective bargaining. More importantly, it upholds workers' constitutional rights and leads to better working and living conditions. However, the bill before us falls short because it includes loopholes that could allow employers to bypass the ban and includes unnecessary delays that postpone workers' protection.

First, anyone performing the job of a worker on strike or lockout must be included in the ban, whenever they were hired. Of course, we accept exceptions for work necessary to prevent an imminent threat to life, health and safety, destruction of property or environmental damage, but we also submit that an agreement on who will perform conservation work must be reached between both the employer and the union and must not be decided by the employer alone.

Also, the waiting period for the CIRB to issue an interim or bottom line decision on the maintenance of activities needs to be cut from 90 to 45 days to ensure employers don't use delaying practices before workers can exercise their right to strike.

Importantly, we need to get rid of the current wording that gives scabs preferential reinstatement over existing employees after a labour dispute. That makes no sense.

Next, the labour code already defines “employee” to include dependent contractors. This exception needs to be removed to make it clear that they are not allowed to cross the picket line.

Finally, the delay before the implementation of this bill needs to be removed. The government needs to show they are serious about this law, and it must come into force before the next election to make it harder for the next government, whoever it may be, to repeal it before workers have had a chance to benefit from it.

I spoke of Telus earlier, but it's not just them. Rogers, having made big promises to the current government to ensure that the acquisition of Shaw closed smoothly, instead locked out 288 of my members in Vancouver and Surrey, British Columbia, before the ink was even dry on the approval. They brought workers in from other parts of Canada, telling them that they would be helping with extra work because of the merger.

Worse still, near the end of the lockout, the B.C. labour board ruled in favour of a provincially regulated contractor, allowing it to force its technicians—against their wishes—to cross our federal picket lines. This unfortunate loophole is being rectified by the provincial government in B.C.

Please ensure this new legislation respects any picket line, regardless of what jurisdiction it falls under. A picket line is a picket line is a picket line. For the sake of all federally regulated workers, we respectfully ask you to adopt these amendments and get Bill C-58 passed and implemented swiftly.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Mark Hancock, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to all the members of the committee.

My name is Mark Hancock, and I'm the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

CUPE represents more than 740,000 frontline public service workers across the country. Over 30,000 CUPE members work in federally regulated industries, such as airlines, communications, public transportation, ports, cash transit and security, as well as in indigenous councils and services.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-58 and the urgent need for anti-scab legislation in Canada.

I want to sincerely thank the NDP and the Liberals for including this commitment in the supply and confidence agreement, and for supporting anti-scab legislation clearly and publicly.

I also want to thank the Bloc Québécois for its support.

I also want to thank all MPs of all political parties for the unanimous vote in favour of Bill C-58 at second reading.

Why is collective bargaining so important that it is a charter-protected right in this country and in many countries around the world? It's because it is the only tool that workers have to correct a fundamental power imbalance between them and their employers. It is this inequity that Bill C-58 aims to address because collective bargaining without a real right to strike is deeply flawed.

This bill will also correct a disproportionate advantage that employers currently have: the ability to lock out their unionized employees and replace them with non-union workers without restriction. This is a practice that allows for a collective dismissal during bargaining.

Right now, as we speak, two groups of CUPE members working under the federal jurisdiction are victims of this vicious tactic. The committee has already heard about them. They are the Quebec port workers, SCFP 2614, and the Videotron employees in Gatineau, SCFP 2815. Some of them are here today.

Longshore workers in Quebec have been locked out for 18 months. Our members are asking for a basic work-life balance because workers cannot ignore their family responsibilities to work extraordinary hours of overtime due to systemic understaffing. Meanwhile, untrained workers are coming in every day to work as scabs, putting the safety of operations and staff at risk.

Employees of Videotron working in Gatineau were locked out in October 2023. They are simply asking to keep their jobs in Canada. Videotron is circumventing their collective agreement protections by locking them out and contracting out their work overseas, where workers are mistreated with impunity and paid a fraction of what Videotron pays its employees in Canada.

While it is business as usual for these two employers, our members and their families are experiencing the devastating and real impacts of this fundamental power imbalance.

Bill C-58 is a step in the right direction to bring fairness to labour relations at the federal level by getting rid of scabs, but the bill has loopholes. We urge you all to consider our recommendations to make this legislation work more effectively.

First, proposed subsection 94(4) should be a prohibition on performing any struck work or locked-out work. Exceptions should be limited to preventing imminent danger to the health and safety of the public or to the environment, or the threat of destruction to the workplace.

Second, the enforcement mechanism should include workplace investigations, as in Quebec. Investigations already exist in the Canada Labour Code for health and safety and labour standards, so it would be easy to replicate.

Third, the prohibition on using scabs should come into force immediately when the bill is adopted. There is no reason to delay the implementation of proposed subsection 94(4). The CIRB already has the authority to issue orders for unfair labour practices, and there is no need for further regulations there.

Finally, I have a few words on essential services. We heard business representatives talk about expanding the definition of essential services to include different types of economic disruptions, but that's what strikes are about: disruption.

As I said before, because it seeks to address a fundamental inequality, the right to strike is a charter-protected right. That means any limit to striking activity must comply with charter guarantees. If essential services are guaranteed to include economic disruption, this restriction on the right to strike will be unconstitutional.

You know that our members will not remain silent when our fundamental rights are attacked. Just ask Premier Ford.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, committee members.

We will begin the second hour of our deliberations on Bill C-58 with our new witnesses.

We have Charles Smith as an individual, appearing virtually. From the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Mark Hancock and Annick Desjardins. From the United Steelworkers, Local 1944, we have Donna Hokiro and Corey Mandryk.

Welcome.

We'll begin with Professor Smith for five minutes or less.

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

There has been an act in Quebec since 1977. Quebec's Labour Code expressly provides that the Minister of Labour may investigate a place of work during a strike or lockout to ensure that anti-scab provisions are being complied with. During a strike or lockout, workers may not be at the place of work or ascertain what is going on there. They may observe what the replacement workers are doing outdoors, but not indoors.

Mr. Lapierre, do you think a similar provision should be added to Bill C-58? It currently provides no such thing.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Abou‑Dib, you made an interesting point when you said we have to be able to make the necessary checks to determine whether the use of scabs is illegal or whether the agreement reached between the parties before the dispute is being complied with.

I was lucky, in a way, to visit a picket line consisting of workers subject to Quebec's anti-scab law. However, as it took too long to get inspectors on the ground, even the Quebec law, which is well known and has been enforced for decades, wasn't always complied with.

How important is it to avoid that trap in Bill C-58?

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

Thank you, Mr. Lapierre.

I want to say that I also agree with you that, if a business brings in subcontractors before sending a notice to negotiate, the subcontractors shouldn't be entitled to do the work of the members of the accreditation unit once the labour dispute is over. I think you're raising a major point there, which is very important.

Mr. Strickland, continuing in the same vein, I was quite appalled to hear you say that a labour dispute in British Columbia had lasted six years because scabs had been brought in. That's terrible.

You said something interesting in one sentence, that Bill C-58 would help stabilize the right to bargain collectively and help workers go back to work.

Would you please provide some more details on the subject, citing the LTS Solutions case that you discussed earlier?

[Mariam Abou-Dib, Executive Director, Government Affairs, Teamsters Canada]

Honourable members of this parliamentary committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you today on behalf of Teamsters Canada. As the executive director and on behalf of President François Laporte and 135,000 members across various sectors of the Canadian economy, I am here to present our views on the legislation aiming to prohibit replacement workers in federally regulated industries.

Teamsters Canada is Canada's transportation and supply chain union, representing workers in all modes of transport, including air, rail, road and many other sectors. Our organization is deeply committed to protecting the rights and interests of workers in Canada, which is fundamental to a healthy Canadian economy.

The practice of using replacement workers violates the rights of striking or locked-out workers, violates the rights of workers, compromises their dignity and autonomy in the workplace and undermines the collective bargaining process. It breeds resentment and frustration among workers and increases the likelihood of violence on picket lines. Moreover, allowing replacement workers exacerbates the power imbalance between workers and employers, leading to poorer working conditions for all workers in the long term.

The use of replacement workers in federally regulated sectors is a significant problem. According to Canada's labour program, replacement workers have been used in approximately 42% of strikes over the past 10 years.

Now is the time to reform our laws and truly protect the constitutional rights of workers in Canada to negotiate their working conditions collectively with employers and to withhold their labour as a last form of leverage in that process. I will remind the committee that Canada's Supreme Court has recognized strikes as an “indispensable component” of collective bargaining. Teamsters Canada also agrees with the International Labour Organization that replacement workers constitute “a serious violation of freedom of association”.

As with any type of legislation, the details matter tremendously. Although the current iteration of the bill is good, there are still areas where the language must be refined in order to avoid effectively creating loopholes for some employers. Our written submission acknowledges areas of the bill that we are particularly pleased with, such as not limiting the banning of replacement workers to an “establishment”, hence recognizing that today's material workplace is not what counts. Things have changed and the actual work is what counts in the context of replacement workers.

While we also believe there should be limited exceptions within the law in order to protect public health and public safety and to prevent significant damage to property, these exceptions should be well defined and subject to robust enforcement provisions to prevent abuse.

Enforcing a ban on replacement workers requires a comprehensive approach. We also recommend providing union representatives access to establishments when on strike or lockout for the purposes of monitoring and reporting any violations. Additionally, the government should establish a mechanism for expedited intervention to address non-compliance and ensure the effective enforcement of the ban.

Persistent and repeated procedural delays in the bargaining process are ultimately a threat to the rights of workers to bargain and strike. Any maintenance of activities process should not present any substantial delays to the bargaining process. In this regard, when there is no agreement, Bill C‑58 requires one of the parties to submit an application of referral to the CIRB for a ruling on the maintenance of essential services. We believe the submission should be automatic to reduce additional delays in granting the right to strike to workers.

On the coming into force of the law, Bill C‑58 states that this will take place 18 months after it receives royal assent. Our contention is that this timeline is excessive and unnecessary and that meaningful investments in the CIRB should be made as soon as possible in order to facilitate reducing this timeline to six months at the most.

We believe that a ban on replacement workers, if done effectively, will benefit working people and their families and will lead to improved labour relations and a more just distribution of the fruits of progress. We also believe this will contribute to shaping an economy in which we create not just more jobs but more good jobs, with fairness and dignity for those performing them.

The passing of this law comes at the right time. We are living in times when all political parties are seeking ways to protect and appeal to the middle class. Moreover, there has been a dangerous trend from certain provincial governments, which have been found by the courts to have flouted the rights of workers. We must set the bar higher and not risk turning back the clock on hard-won advancements for workers in this country.

In conclusion, adopting legislation to prohibit replacement workers in federally regulated sectors is a necessary step for protecting the rights of workers and promoting fair labour practices. It is crucial for governments to uphold the charter rights of workers by ensuring that the right to effectively strike is respected and not undermined by the use of replacement workers. By doing so, we can create a more equitable and just society for all Canadians.

Thank you for your attention. I'm open to any questions, and I look forward to further discussion on this.

[Sean Strickland, Executive Director, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Sean Strickland, and I serve as the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions. We are the national voice for over 600,000 skilled tradespeople in Canada who belong to 14 international unions and work in 60 occupations and trades.

I'm pleased to be here today along with my colleagues to advocate for speedy passage of Bill C-58, and remind this committee how critical this legislation is.

Banning replacement workers will protect workers' rights, prioritize the collective bargaining process and get workers back to the job. It will stabilize the bargaining process for federally regulated industries and positively impact almost a million workers.

When workers decide to withdraw their labour and strike, these decisions are not taken lightly. Generally, it's the last option after all other bargaining approaches have failed. Allowing the use of replacement workers—scabs—undermines the bargaining powers of workers in the negotiation process and removes the incentive for employers to avoid a strike or lockout. Strikes during which employers choose to hire replacement workers take longer to resolve, and that hurts families and communities.

We don't have to look back very far to understand the negative effects replacement workers can have on our workforce. In British Columbia, 238 workers attempted to bargain with LTS Global Solutions, a subsidiary of Ledcor, as a local established under the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 213. Since 2017, they had sought a collective agreement to improve working conditions, establish job security and secure fair wages. The majority of those workers were technicians, installing and repairing telecommunications equipment as contractors for Telus.

After union certification, the employer, LTS, refused to meet with the union for bargaining, and after two years without a collective agreement, the workers voted to go on strike. Rather than engaging in good-faith collective bargaining, LTS responded by bringing in replacement workers. As a result, the strike ended up lasting nearly six years, with the deal only occurring in June 2023.

It took a unanimous ruling from the Canada Industrial Relations Board to end it. Why? As telecommunications workers, they fell under federal labour laws. Unlike other workers in B.C., who were protected, there was no incentive for LTS to get back to the bargaining table because LTS could continue with business as usual, ignore its obligations to the unionized employees and use its considerable resources to drag the whole process through the courts for almost six long years. This has to change, as it has in some provinces.

Provincially, we've seen similar legislation successfully implemented in both B.C. and Quebec. British Columbia's labour relations code prohibits employers from using replacement workers, regardless of whether they're being paid to do the work. In Quebec, the labour code represents the most comprehensive ban on replacement workers. It covers almost all workers, except health care and public safety workers, and those sectors regulated by the Canada Labour Code.

Obviously, there's a gap between the Canada Labour Code and provincial labour codes. In B.C. and Quebec, that needs to be addressed for the benefit of all federally regulated workers. The success in both provinces amplifies how banning replacement workers protects workers' rights, improves collective bargaining and reduces the duration of strikes when they do occur.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I urge you to ensure speedy passage of this bill. Let's get this done for Canadian workers and their families.

I look forward to the discussion and your questions.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, committee members. I will call the meeting to order.

The clerk has advised that we have a quorum and that those appearing virtually have been sound-tested and are good.

Welcome to meeting number 108 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually using Zoom.

I would like to make a few comments, primarily for the benefit of the witnesses who are new to us.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice.

In the room, interpretation services are available by using the headset and selecting the language of your choice. For those here virtually, please select the globe icon at the bottom of your screen to choose the language of your choice.

If there is a breakdown in interpretation services, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

For those in the room, please make sure your earpiece is not close to the microphone, because it will create popping, which can be harmful to the interpreters.

Please direct any questions you may have through the chair. To get my attention, please raise your hand. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon at the bottom of your screen.

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

Appearing in the first hour today, we have, from Canada's Building Trades Unions, Sean Strickland, executive director; from Teamsters Canada, by video conference, Mariam Abou-Dib, executive director, government affairs; and from the United Steelworkers union, Nicolas Lapierre, assistant to the Quebec director, who is here in the room.

Welcome. Each of you will have five minutes or less for your opening statement.

We will begin with Mr. Strickland for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I have heard testimony not only at this committee but also at the trade committee, so I'll correct your assumption as well that replacement workers prolong strikes. Everyone is saying that replacement workers, whether put in place during a lockout or during a strike, prolong the strike, because, again, no one is at the table when they're there. That is what we've heard at this committee and at other committees, and through consultations.

On that note, FETCO had pointed to the track record of previous bills banning the use of replacement workers, which have not been passed in the House of Commons. However, it's important to note the differences between those bills and Bill C-58, which promotes a tripartite approach to consulting with the unions, government and businesses. This included unions and business leaders sitting shoulder to shoulder at multiple round tables. There were extensive consultations that included round tables, 55 stakeholders and 71 written submissions.

I understand that the consultations were even extended to January 31, 2023, and, at FETCO's request, included many other businesses and stakeholders. We listened and we consulted broadly in a tripartite approach, and that informed our legislation.

Was FETCO consulted on the drafting of the bills preceding C-58 that you pointed to as not being successful?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for allowing me to be here today to hear the testimony from the previous group of folks and these folks on this really important legislation ahead of us.

I've been on both sides of the bargaining table. I've bargained for the union and I've bargained with the union. At the end of the day, the best deals are at the table. That's the purpose of this—to keep people at the table. When people walk away from the table, no deals are being done. There are no negotiations.

My first question is for you, Derrick. One thing Bill C-58 talks about is a “maintenance of activities”. Your organization, FETCO, has claimed that this bill will lead to such critical services as 911 being cut off due to a strike. I did some research into the maintenance of activities process. I found that in 2003, Telus reached a maintenance of activities agreement with Telecommunications Workers Union. It stipulated that members would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during the labour dispute to repair telecommunications services for police, fire, ambulance, 911, hospitals and the Coast Guard.

I noticed that in the last panel, Mr. Collins asked the unions if these agreements were normal. In fact, they said they couldn't imagine a scenario where there wouldn't be such an agreement in place.

To FETCO, when you put out communications against the bill, did you know that the maintenance of activities process was meant to maintain these 911 services? There was some reaction from the public, but I would like you to explain that particular scenario that I went through and researched and the importance that 911 services will still continue.

[Derrick Hynes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications]

Thank you, Chair.

I appear before you today as a representative from FETCO, which is an association that represents most of Canada's major airlines, courier companies, marine ports, railways, telecom firms and others in their capacity as employers.

FETCO members employ nearly two-thirds of all workers in the federally regulated private sector. Our members are overwhelmingly unionized, with decades of productive collective bargaining with most major private sector unions.

A lot has been said over the last few months related to Bill C-58, which will effectively ban the use of replacement workers during a work stoppage. Unfortunately, from our perspective, much of what has been said to date is simply not rooted in documented reality.

This debate needs to be focused on evidence. The literature proves two things clearly. Replacement worker bans result in more strikes and longer strikes. These bans incentivize strike activity and discourage collective bargaining.

Those most affected by replacement worker bans are everyday Canadians. When major employers like airlines, ports, railways and telecoms are shut down, supply chains break. Shipments are halted, packages are not delivered, passengers are stranded, Internet and cable services are shut down and banking stops. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are affected because the critical services provided by major federally regulated organizations are no longer possible.

To date, neither the government nor any union has presented a shred of documented evidence that demonstrates how this improves the collective bargaining process. In fact, the Minister of Labour reminds us that 96% of all bargaining in the federal private sector ends without a work stoppage.

While it is not perfect, the system is working. This bill is proposing to fix a problem that does not exist. This debate was settled 30 years ago in a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code. Balance exists. Nothing is gained, that can be demonstrably proven, from banning replacement workers. Government should not be introducing legislation that is sure to add instability to already vulnerable supply chains.

We need to set the record straight on what a replacement worker is. These are not scores of random people hired off the street. These are typically current employees of the company, such as managers, supervisors or contractors with whom the employer has a pre-existing relationship. These are temporary measures.

Replacement workers keep the lights on and provide a basic level of service until the strike ends. This is the collective bargaining system in action. It's not a flaw, but an actual design feature. When the strike ends, all unionized employees go back to work and temporary replacement workers leave.

What is sometimes hidden in this debate is the fact that a replacement worker ban gives very small bargaining units in large organizations an ability to shut down the entire organization. This can happen at an airline, an airport, a railway, a marine port or in telecom. The extended supply chain impacts can be extensive.

Federal elected officials have known for decades this is a bad idea. Though it has come up at least a dozen times in the past 15 years, it has always been rejected by parliamentarians. There's nothing in this bill or the process that led to it that makes it any different from past efforts.

Public policy should be based on documented facts. This is not that.

As employers, we live in the real world. We recognize, given that we are here today, that this bill seems to be getting traction with MPs. Our preference is that you reject this bill in its entirety, but if you're going to proceed, we sincerely urge you to amend it in several ways as specifically requested in our submission to you that we filed recently.

In short, first, this bill needs more flexibility as it relates to the use of contractors. The bill is too restrictive in this space. Let us not lose sight of the fact that contractors are workers, too, and many have long-lasting relationships with the organizations I represent.

Two, unionized employees who want to work should not be prohibited from doing so. If you agree that we live in an era of cost of living challenges, why would we take away anyone’s right to choose to go to work?

Three, exceptions to these rules must accommodate national economic interest or national economic security as they relate to both replacement workers and essential services. The current bar is simply too high. It includes threat to life, threat of destruction of property and threat of environmental disaster. These are apocalyptic-level exceptions.

Finally, dates related to these provisions should back up, we believe, to the notice of dispute rather than the notice to bargain.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry for going over.

[Todd Lewis, Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Hello, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Todd Lewis, and I am first vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I grow grain, canola and lentils just south of Regina, Saskatchewan, in a little town called Gray.

The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization. We represent over 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada, and they are the heart of the Canadian agri-food system, which generates $143.8 billion of Canada's gross domestic product—around 7%.

Canadian farmers proudly produce high-quality agriculture and agri-food products, of which over 92 billion dollars' worth was exported to trade partners around the world in 2022. Canada is an exporting nation. The flow of goods generated from trade is intimately tied to our standard of living. Countries around the world purchase Canadian agricultural products due to our reputation as a reliable supplier of high-quality products. However, if these products are unable to reach overseas customers due to a prolonged labour disruption, this has a direct impact on Canadian farmers, the Canadian economy and our reliability as an exporting nation.

For example, as noted in the final report of the national supply chain task force, labour disruptions in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022 “all affected how logistics and supply chain decision-makers and international businesses view Canada’s reliability as a place to do business.” It said that “even the threat of strikes or lockouts negatively affects the operation of the national transportation supply chain and, in turn, Canada’s reputation as a destination of choice for doing business.”

Let me be very clear: We recognize the importance of free and fair collective bargaining in Canada, and we support the rights of unionized workers to negotiate fairly with their employers. However, we believe that the movement of agriculture and agri-food products should be viewed as necessary, and certain exemptions must be made to the proposed legislation, Bill C-58, to recognize the importance of maintaining the movement of these goods during labour disputes.

There is precedent for this. In 1998, amendments were made to the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by then minister of labour Lawrence MacAulay, which prohibited the cessation of work among longshore workers loading grain vessels during a strike or lockout. However, these amendments only apply to bulk grain movement and do not apply to container movement of grain and perishable goods.

Prohibiting the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces during a strike or lockout could cripple Canada’s food supply chains.

Because the railways have a dual monopoly over the shipment of grain in Canada, producers and shippers have very limited options. In most cases, they have only one option to maintain service during a labour disruption.

As a result, we recommend that the employer's ability to re-assign existing non-unionized workers within a company, including management staff, be maintained when necessary to maintain Canada’s domestic food and feed supply. Our hope would be that management could still provide critical functions during such stoppages to allow for the flow of agricultural goods. In our view, this would maintain the integrity of the collective bargaining process by preventing a return to full capacity, while at the same time providing a means of keeping some minimal level of service and the flow of agricultural goods where there are no other options for Canadian shippers.

For this to be reflected in Bill C-58, we recommend the addition of a new paragraph (c) under proposed subsection 94(7) “Exception—threat, destruction or damage” of the Canada Labour Code, stating that “the use of the services is necessary to maintain the flow of essential goods necessary for the maintenance and preservation of Canada’s domestic food and feed supply and global food security.”

The agricultural sector has faced seven work stoppages over the past six years alone. Prolonged work stoppages not only threaten our international reputation but also have real impacts on Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy.

In conclusion, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak today. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Caroline Senneville]

Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525 were both anti-union bills, in our view. They were aimed at making unionization more difficult and, once unions were formed, at reducing their scope of action. In our opinion, this violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, I repeat, guarantees the right of association.

As I said at the outset, Bill C‑58 will indeed transform the world of work and its vision in Canada. That is not insignificant.

In Quebec, the statistics are looked at every year. We saw that after the adoption of anti-scab legislation in 1977, the number of strikes didn't increase. What has decreased is violence and the number of ambulances on picket lines.

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

Thank you, Chair, and good morning.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning.

I think if there's ever been an example of a party that doesn't want to talk about legislation, Canadians can see that today. The Conservative Party wants to talk about everything but this legislation. I am not going to talk about how a turkey cost $100 two years ago and I bought one for $35 two weeks ago. I am not going to talk about that.

Ms. Senneville, my question for you is this: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were two stunning pieces of legislation that the Conservative Party brought forth when it was in government that were absolutely detrimental and devastating to unions.

I would like you to talk to us, for the record, about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and tell us what they did to unions. I want you to also comment on Bill C-58 and how important it is. I want you to dispel the myth that unions want to strike.

[Robert Ashton]

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see the relevance to Bill C-58 when it comes to the unemployment rate in Canada. We're here to talk about anti-scab legislation, not the unemployment rate.

I am not here to give one political party or another political party the ability to score points, one against the other, so I'll decline to comment.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before asking the witnesses questions, I would just like to point out the presence in the room of Sébastien, a Videotron worker in Gatineau who has been locked out for more than six months now. He has to deal with the fact that replacement workers are taking his work and his salary. I think it's important to show that we're not just talking about events that happened 10 or 20 years ago. Right now, workers are still suffering the consequences of the use of replacement workers. My thanks to Sébastien for being with us today.

Ms. Senneville, you said you were touched to be here because this was an essential bill and a historic moment. I want to tell you that I feel the same way.

I would like to hear more from you about what Bill C‑58 will do for the members of the CSN in certain federations and in certain sectors. As a union leader, can you tell us what will change compared to what you have experienced in recent years?

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

You used the image of Swiss cheese to talk about the holes in the bill. Quebec's anti-strikebreaking law makes it impossible to hire a worker from another bargaining unit before a strike notice or notice to commence collective bargaining is given. Under Bill C‑58, however, such tactics would be allowed. Even though the bill aims to prevent the use of replacement workers, it does allow for exceptions.

In your opinion, how does this undermine the very spirit of the bill?

[Marty Warren, National Director, United Steelworkers Union]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, thank you to the clerk and to the members of the committee for the chance to join you today.

I'm Marty Warren. I'm the national director for the United Steelworkers Union. The USW is the largest private sector union in North America, with 225,000 members in nearly every economic sector across Canada, including federally regulated members in rail, telecommunications, airport security and ports.

Steelworkers have been part of the anti-scab fight for decades. Our experience shows that bans on replacement workers improve labour relations, reduce the number and lengths of conflicts, and lead to better working and living standards for workers.

Strikes and lockouts are hard enough on the community, but the use of scabs pits workers against workers, neighbours against neighbours and, sometimes, even family members against family members. Further, it leads to decades of poor labour relations moving forward.

Anti-scab legislation already exists in B.C. and Quebec. Soon, Manitoba will be added to the list. We were happy when the NDP included the anti-scab legislation in the supply and confidence agreement, and when the Liberals tabled that legislation.

That said, it still falls short. It currently has loopholes, and employers will hire scabs and not live up to the intent of the legislation. Further, the delay of its coming into force is not reasonable. It's way too long.

As you can see from our submission, we have some clear recommendations to solve the problems.

First, anyone doing the job of a worker who is on strike or locked out must be included in the ban, no matter when they were hired. As it stands, as long as they were hired or contracted on or before the notice to bargain was served, employers could still use scabs who are from outside of the bargaining unit, from other locations, managerial or confidential employees, or contractors or employees from another employer.

Of course, we accept exceptions for work needed to prevent an imminent threat to life, health and safety, destruction of property or environmental damage.

This brings me to the second recommendation, which is that an agreement about who would perform the conservation work needs to be made between both the employer and the union. The bill currently leaves it to the employer alone. If both sides can't agree, it should go to the Industrial Relations Board. Unions should have the right of first refusal to perform such work.

Third, any temporary employee hired to do conservation work cannot automatically become an employee in the bargaining unit. The current language would give preferential reinstatement to scabs over existing employees after the strike or lockout. That just doesn’t make sense.

Fourth, it needs to be clear that dependent contractors are not allowed to perform bargaining committee work. The bill specifically excludes dependent contractors from the ban, even though the Labour Code defines “employee” to include dependent contractors. The exception needs to be removed from proposed paragraph 94(4)(b).

Fifth, the waiting period for the IRB needs to be cut from 90 days to 45 days. At very least, the IRB needs to issue an interim or bottom-line decision within 45 days. Employers already take advantage of delays at the IRB for months and even years. Again, that has to be fixed, not allowed to get worse.

Finally, and very importantly, the delay before the implementation of this bill, once passed, needs to be scrapped. We have heard from public sector servants with experience that there's no need for this delay. If the government is serious about the law, it needs to come into force before the next election. It's far easier for the next government, whatever stripe it may be, to scrap a law that people haven't yet been able to use.

Workers can't afford to wait. In just the last year, we had members at our tugboat operations in Quebec and our telecom workers in B.C. stuck on the line when scabs came through.

In both of these cases, if they had been provincially regulated, they would have had the protection of anti-scab legislation, but since they were not, they did not.

For the good of all federally regulated workers, and to set an example to the provinces who still fall short, please accept and pass these amendments, and let Bill C-58 pass for implementation.

Thank you.

[Robert Ashton, President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning from B.C. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to be before you all today.

My name is Rob Ashton. I'm the president of ILWU Canada, which represents 16,000 workers in B.C. and Saskatchewan in a variety of sectors, our largest sector being the maritime sector.

Members of ILWU Canada strongly support Bill C-58, and we urge this committee to wholeheartedly support this bill to make it better for workers who vote in Canada.

Strikes and lockouts are not easy on workers, and that's why the decision to go on strike is made by the rank and file of the union. The decision to go on strike is one that workers make as a last resort to try to get a fairly negotiated settlement with their employers, but it's definitely at a financial loss for these workers.

In regard to a lockout, the worker has no say in this, and employers impose this on them to break them as a united workforce. In fact, employers use this option to cripple workers financially in the hopes they will become desperate and accept a lesser deal just to go back to work.

Employers use terms like “team member” or “you're part of the family”, but then turn around and use scabs when the bottom line might be impacted. Employers that use scabs do not, never have and never will, care about their workers. They only see a path towards more profits, and in doing so, they hurt their employees, while tearing communities apart. In my opinion, employers who use scabs have no regard for these consequences.

When a strike or lockout happens, employers currently have an option to use scab labour. This puts the balance of power in the employer's hands, as it keeps their products moving, while at the same time turning worker against worker. This is a weapon of the bosses, and can and will be used to break the backs of Canadians so they can pocket more of the profits that are made off the backs of their employees.

In the history of ILWU Canada in the longshore division, scabs were utilized on June 18, 1935. This day has been immortalized as the Battle of Ballantyne Pier. On that day, longshore workers marched to the terminal to explain to the scabs that scabbing on them was not the right thing to do, and that standing shoulder to shoulder with their fellow workers would help strengthen all workers and give the longshoremen of the day a better chance at the bargaining table. What happened was these workers and allies were attacked by police and private constables with batons and other weapons, who also used tear gas as well at the women's auxiliary aid station. This, I might add, was the first time tear gas was used on Canadians in Canada. This was done just because they were there.

The use of scabs created conditions for violence perpetrated by employers and others against peaceful picketers, who were only fighting for a fair collective agreement. This attack is an example of what some employers and some governments feel is the only way to end a strike or a lockout while scabs are being used.

We wholeheartedly support Bill C-58 so that history does not have a chance to repeat itself and that will get workers get a fair shake to get a freely negotiated collective agreement by the banning of scab labour federally.

We are asking with urgency that this committee reduce the wait time for implementation of this bill to zero wait time. Canadian workers need this bill passed and put into law with zero delay to level the playing field, as they say. Canadian workers have waited long enough and expect our elected representatives to do what is right for workers.

In closing, I'd like to offer a message to the working class. If you are an environmentalist or a pipeline worker, a small shop owner or a longshoreman—we're all workers—do not let the employing class split us, as division is the weapon of the employing class.

To our elected officials as well as anyone else listening, I leave you all with a question from Pete Seeger in regard to Bill C-58—Which Side Are You On?

Thank you for giving me this time to speak.

[Caroline Senneville, President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Good morning. Thank you for having us.

I'll give a brief introduction to the CSN. The CSN is a union organization dating back over 100 years in Quebec and Canada. We have over 330,000 members in all industries, in both the private and public sectors. In terms of federally regulated organizations, we represent employees in the communications and grain elevator industries. The CSN also counts the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers among its members. We call ourselves the federation of national trade unions because we're active only in Quebec and Canada. We don't have any international ties.

I'm pleased and touched to be here today. You're studying a bill of vital importance to all Canadian workers. This doesn't happen often. There are all kinds of bills. However, for Canadian workers, Bill C‑58 is essential. I think that many people share this opinion. All parties in the House voted in favour of this bill at second reading.

As you know—and I'll say it again—the right to associate is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years, this right has been tied in with good faith negotiations. When we associate, we have the right to negotiate in good faith. We also have the right to use a balance of power to negotiate in good faith and obtain a good collective agreement. Two Supreme Court rulings have set out these rights.

It's simple for us. If replacement workers are allowed in the event of a labour dispute, this flies in the face of the constitutional rights of Canadian workers as they now stand.

A strike is no picnic. The decision isn't made lightly. Labour codes provide a strict framework for exercising the right to strike and for obtaining a right to strike. We must have a secret ballot. When we're alone in the voting booth and we mark X in favour of a strike, we know when it will start, but we don't know when it will end. We often talk about the economic impact of a strike. However, these effects are mainly felt by the people exercising their right to strike. The decision is never made lightly.

For us, the right to strike is part of the balance of power. When the employer can hire replacement workers, it really upsets the balance of power. It even eliminates that balance, especially in the case of a lockout. Think about a lockout. A lockout isn't a democratic decision. It's a management decision. There isn't any vote on a lockout. The employer can make the decision well in advance and prepare by hiring workers or preparing to hire replacement workers. The employer holds all the cards. The balance of power on the workers' side is gone. In our opinion, this isn't right. I would even say that it completely contravenes the spirit of the charter or the latest Supreme Court rulings.

We're here to talk about Bill C‑58. We have some specific comments on the bill. We're pleased to see that it takes into account the new work reality and environment, including telework, and different workplaces. We come from a province with anti‑scab legislation. We're happy about that. However, the legislation has been in place for a long time, and adjustments are needed. This federal bill is completely up to date, and we welcome it.

That said, one of our main criticisms concerns the list of exceptions regarding employees who may not be hired as scabs. We find that the list of exceptions is quite long, and that it undermines the spirit or purpose of the bill. I would say, to use an image, that we're starting to see a few too many holes, and not enough cheese.

In our view, the only real exception that justifies hiring replacement workers is when essential services must be provided. Let's be clear. Essential services come into play when people's lives and safety are at risk. In Quebec, we have operated in this manner for over 40 years. No one has ever died or gone hungry because of a strike.

We also hope that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will have the resources needed to ensure the implementation of this bill. When a bill is passed, only half the work is done. The next step must involve ensuring the implementation of the provisions in the bill. It's vital to have an investigative process. We're all law‑abiding citizens here. However, if people knew that there weren't any police on the highway, I'm not sure that they would respect the speed limit.

In closing, since this bill is essential, we would like to see it come into force as soon as possible.

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

I call this meeting to order. It is 8:15, and the clerk has advised me that we have quorum. The witnesses and committee members who are appearing virtually have been sound-tested, and all are good.

Welcome to meeting number 107 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person, as well as remotely using Zoom.

I would like to give a few points to the participants.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. If you are participating by video conference, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when not speaking.

Those on Zoom have the choice, as do those in the room, of participating in the official language of their choice. In the room, interpretation is available using the headset and earpiece; just select the language of your choice. Those appearing virtually can click on the globe icon at the bottom of their Surface and choose the language of their choice.

If there is an issue with sound quality and interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's being corrected. Those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” function.

As well, please direct all questions and inquiries through me, the chair.

Those in the room, please remember to keep your earpieces away from the microphones to prevent injury to the interpreters, who do an extremely valuable service for us. As well, if you could remember to speak slowly, that will give them the opportunity to translate effectively.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

Appearing in the first hour, we have, from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Caroline Senneville, president, who will deliver the opening comments; Ioanna Egarhos, lawyer; and Pascal Jean political adviser. From the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, we have Robert Ashton, president, by video conference. From the United Steelworkers union, we have Marty Warren, national director, who will deliver the opening statement; and Meg Gingrich, assistant to the national director.

We will begin with Ms. Senneville.

For your opening comments, you have five minutes or less, please. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Do you have any comments about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good afternoon, committee members.

Welcome to meeting number 106 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members have the option of appearing virtually or in the room. Witnesses and committee members are appearing in person this afternoon.

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

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

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

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

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

Each group will have five minutes for an opening statement.

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

[Sandra Hassan]

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Minister O'Regan, thank you for coming.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

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

You may continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

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

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Gray, the time has concluded.

We are here to review Bill C-58. Please keep relevant to the general tone of the bill.

Mr. Sheehan, you have six minutes.

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

Are we going to get to Bill C-58 at any point in time?

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

The point of order is irrelevance. We're here to talk about Bill C-58.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The labour movement has been telling us for years that replacement workers are bad, a distraction, and prolong labour disputes. We've listened, and now we're going to ban replacement workers.

I have spent a lot of time around the bargaining table over the last couple of years. It is hard work. It gets tense at times. It can be downright messy—and it works. It works. The federal mediation and conciliation service has resolved 96% of labour disputes within the last year. Four per cent of the time, I'm often seen in the media repeating the same message I always do, which is do the work and focus on the table, where the best deals are made—fair, lasting deals that benefit both the employers and the workers.

Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said it very well:

Collective bargaining is problem-solving. Companies that have to participate in that usually have a better outcome, because they’ve had to think through things with labour at the table. And you take two groups that, you know, want dramatically different things, but in collective bargaining, they have to come together and there has to be problem-solving. And if we had that kind of thinking more...think about how different our politics would be.

Replacement workers distract from all of that. They prolong disputes and they poison labour relations for years after. With Bill C-58, we will ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces during a strike or a lockout. That means no new contractors and no members of the bargaining unit crossing the picket line. The penalty for violating the ban will be up to $100,000 a day.

Of course, employers could use replacement workers if the health or safety of people or the protection of property or the environment were ever at risk. Bill C-58 is about stability, long-term stability, with strong labour relations that are forged through free and fair collective bargaining—free “and” fair. Right now, one side of the bargaining table is carrying a lot of the risk. You go too far in a negotiation and they lose. Their labour, their bargaining power—that can be replaced. With Bill C-58, both the union and the employer carry the risk. Both are motivated to stay at the table. That is what we want.

Look at the Port of Quebec, where workers have been locked out for 18 months. That's 18 months. Replacement workers have been brought in to do their job for 18 months. What kind of long-term solution is that? What kind of toxic relationship will that employer and that union have to repair for years to come? Collective bargaining is hard work, but right now, one side has a way out. As we say, the best way to settle disputes is at the negotiating table. I am not a believer in shortcuts.

Now, I have been asked what separates this bill from previous private members' bills. Let me just say that it is a liberal bill in the truest sense of the word. It is developed through tripartism to make sure we get the balance right.

We have something called the “maintenance of activities process”. That is an agreement for how employers and unions agree on what work will continue during a strike or lockout. It's a truce. It's a truce that remains intact even in the midst of a dispute. Right now that isn't required, and the system can be gamed.

Both employers and workers asked for improvements to this process during our consultations last year. When Bill C-58 passes, the employer and the union will be required by law to get together and determine what work needs to continue during a strike or a lockout, if any. We are setting clear timelines on this of 15 days for the parties to come to an agreement. If they cannot come to an agreement, the matter will be referred to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to resolve within 90 days. This is something that both unions and employers asked for. It means more certainty and more predictability in collective bargaining.

We believe in a free and fair collective bargaining process. We believe stability and certainty in our supply chains and services are essential. We believe these are not mutually exclusive concerns. They reinforce each other. This is important. Canada is a reliable trading partner to the world, but that credibility depends on the sustainable operation of our supply chains. It depends on strong, productive labour relations, and on parties staying at the table and reaching a deal.

Thank you. I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

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

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

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

We're suspended.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

I'll direct that to Ms. Payne.

[Denis Bolduc]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm available to answer your questions.

Thank you again.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lana Payne, National President, Unifor]

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to meeting number 105 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. People are attending in person and virtually using Zoom.

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

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

Please direct all comments through the chair.

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

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

Welcome to the committee.

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

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

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

Labour

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

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

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

Canada Labour Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Labour

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

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

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

Canada Labour Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber as I rise today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

This bill would, of course, amend Part I of the Canada Labour Code and the industrial board regulations to prohibit the use of replacement workers, and improve the process of protecting against the immediate and serious danger to public health and safety during a legal strike or lockout. More specifically, the bill would prohibit employers from using new hires or contractors to replace striking workers. In addition, they also could not use members of the very same bargaining unit that was on strike or in a lockout position.

There are two exceptions provided for in the bill. First, employers would be able to use those replacement workers in the strike or lockdown if it was necessary to protect life, health or safety; protect against destruction or damage to the employer's property or premises; or to protect against serious environmental damage affecting those premises. Second, employers could use employees within the bargaining unit to prevent that same list of circumstances that I just outlined.

When I commute to Ottawa, I fly in to and out of Windsor. My flight path almost always takes me, depending on which way the wind blows, over the new battery plant being built in Windsor, the Stellantis plant. In fact, on Friday, a few days ago, I toured one of the buildings of this new plant with the leader of the official opposition and my friend, the member for Essex. This building was being erected by a local third-generation, family-owned construction company, Rosati, with a strong, unionized, industrious local workforce.

I find it a bit ironic that we are debating this legislation today, Bill C-58, when the government committed $15 billion of Canadian taxpayer funds for a battery plant that is hiring foreign replacement workers. We can make the argument that this is not the very same worker. The point is, this is $15 billion of taxpayer funds. That is going to cost every family in Canada $1,000, while leaving our union workers out in the cold. We can debate the semantics of whether that is a replacement worker or not.

I also find it ironic that this legislation would not ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, but this legislation is not being extended to the public sector unions. In those situations, the federal government is a party to the negotiation process. Is that not a bit curious?

Last November, we also learned that the Liberals are allowing companies like NextStar and Northvolt to bring in hundreds of foreign workers to help build electric vehicles in Windsor and Quebec. Not surprisingly, the government has received major pushback from our unions on this. Sean Strickland, the executive director from Canada's Building Trades Unions, has called the situation unconscionable. He said that bringing in 900 foreign workers is well beyond the standards his organization has ever seen.

Conservatives will always stand up for Canadian workers. In fact, we tabled a motion in November at the House's government operations committee to compel the government to be transparent with Canadians once and for all, and publish the contracts for the two battery plant deals, as well as the three others that have received a promise of federal subsidies. Of course, Liberal members on the committee objected.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle compared this situation to shareholders demanding to hold a company's CEO accountable. By shareholders here, of course we mean the Canadian taxpayers. By the company's CEO, we mean the Prime Minister of Canada. He said, “foreign replacement workers coming to Canada, thanks to taxpayer subsidies, is of interest not just to the workers in the area but to every single Canadian family whose tax bill is underwriting this.”

A further example of taxpayers underwriting government overspending is, of course, the arrive scam app. It gave a $20-million contract to GC Strategies, a two-person IT firm, though it might be four people but that does not really matter, which does no actual IT work. The government cannot confirm how much the company has received. We have learned that GC Strategies has received a quarter of a billion dollars in consulting contracts since 2015.

Why did the Prime Minister not go out and hire another 600 border guards to address the car theft we are experiencing, or the import of handguns or drugs from across the border? That would have been $60 billion far better spent. It has never been more clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

I am a Conservative, so I believe that the market mechanism is the most efficient means by which to transfer the value of goods and services. Services include things like the labour that is required in almost every sector of our economy. However, markets only function best and are sustainable over time when there is a balance of power across the negotiating table where these goods and services are being established. Too much power on one side or the other distorts the process, leads to unfair outcomes and is not sustainable over time. Collective bargaining is one such structure that has developed over time to bring some balance to the negotiating table. It is obviously used in many sectors of our economy.

Prior to being elected, I served and participated in a form of such bargaining on behalf of processing vegetable producers in annual negotiations with processors to establish pre-plant contracts for the terms and conditions of sale for a particular vegetable crop each and every season. Do members know what? We did not always agree. Then, a strike or a lockout really was not an option for either the processors or the growers as it is Mother Nature who dictates, through the seasonality of our Canadian climate, when the crops need to be planted and harvested. The certainty of a pre-plant contract was vital for both processors and producers so that they were assured of a supply for the processors and of the opportunity of a fair return for the producers. Therefore, an alternate form of dispute resolution needed to be found in the event of contract negotiations not being agreed upon by the pre-approved deadline.

For many years, the industry used the final offer selection arbitration process as this dispute settling mechanism and, as unpleasant as any arbitration ever is, the system worked and worked well for many years for several reasons. The first is that it was fair.

Second,it worked well because it drove good negotiations, which I believe is the goal of all processes to establish fair values, be it for a tomato crop or for an hourly wage. In the event that two parties to a contract talk could not agree by a specified predetermined time, they flipped final offers. At that time, both parties submitted their final offer to an arbitrator or to a panel of arbitrators of all the outstanding disputed items in the contract. Some time after a period of conciliation or mediation, an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators had to pick, and here is the key, one party's position in its entirety. They could not “split the baby in half”.

Herein lies the beauty of the system. If either party submitted an unreasonable or indefensible position, even on one particular aspect of the contract, it risked the arbitrator picking the other party's position. Therefore, in effect, the final offer selection process drives good negotiations to settle at the table where the best agreements are always made, rather than risk an arbitration process.

Let me be clear. Canadian workers have the right to collectively bargain and to determine fair value for their work, and it is inevitable that not all such bargaining situations will end in an immediate agreement. Bill C-58 sets out one option in the event that a strike situation occurs. Of course, unions will argue that the option for replacement workers tips the balance of power too much toward the employers, while employers will state that the lack of such an option will lengthen strikes and jeopardize so much of the critical facets of our economy, thus hurting the Canadian public.

In another setting, I have personally experienced a different option: final offer arbitration. That has worked to settle disputes and has allowed crops to be planted and harvested on time without disrupting or losing a season. Improved labour relations should be the goal of any and every government, and having good labour relations is ultimately what is best for our country, for our workers and for our employers.

I look forward to the continuation of the debate to see if Bill C-58 is the right tool in the right circumstances. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate Perrin Beatty's interventions and sometimes his critiques of the work of our government. I find his comments very helpful.

Just to clarify, my understanding is that there were 57 stakeholder organizations that came together at five round tables, where labour organizations and unions sat down with major employers. The sectors that were represented were the telecommunications sector; air, marine and rail transportation sectors; and courier and postal services sectors. They, as well as all of the major unions, all participated in the round tables. There were 71 written submissions, 45 personal stories, individual comments and then a “What We Heard” report, which was published.

All of the work of proper consultation was done in the lead-up to the tabling of Bill C-58. That is why the bill is so significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from December 14, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That comes down to choice, affordability and community.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

I look forward to taking your questions.

[Robin Guy]

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

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here today.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a range of other supply chain—

[Robin Guy, Vice-President and Deputy Leader, Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

While government isn't solely responsible for infrastructure investment, a federal commitment to major, strategic, long-term investments is key to building Canada’s trade infrastructure.

The government's national trade corridors fund is a positive step forward. While it is supporting worthwhile projects, the government must work to increase the speed at which projects receive funding. It must work with business on ensuring transparency for projects and by continuing to demonstrate how funding is helping to address the supply chain challenges of both today and tomorrow.

We need government to lead the development of a vision for Canada's trade infrastructure. This committee's 2019 report on the topic included a number of important recommendations, including protecting industrial lands along trade corridors, the need for regulatory harmonization across jurisdictions and the imperative to ensure environmental assessment timelines do not hamstring our ability to move goods across the country.

A 2021 European Court of Auditors comparison of frameworks for large transportation projects in Canada, Australia, the United States, Switzerland, France, Norway and the European Union noted all but Canada had an overarching transport infrastructure strategic framework.

In addition to vision, we need government to protect our critical supply chains from predictable and preventable threats. While government can't solve all of our supply chain issues, it must put in place policies that will enable trade and strengthen supply chains.

The introduction of Bill C-58, which aims to prohibit the use of replacement workers during strikes, suggests that the government actually wants to move away from preserving stability. In fact, it is doubling down on Canada being seen as an unreliable and unstable trading partner.

Lastly, we need government to commit to accelerating its regulatory modernization agenda.

Regulatory modernization continues to be a growing concern. Businesses who trade interprovincially cite increased red tape and differing certification and technical standards as major obstacles to doing business within Canada. Unfortunately, Canada has a complex network of overlapping regulations from all levels of government that diminish competition, discourage open trade and make everything more expensive.

Regulatory effectiveness is integral to a competitive environment and requires smarter regulation to attract new economic opportunities to Canada. We believe it is imperative that regulators and businesses work together to share perspectives to develop optimal regulatory approaches. An economic lens mandate for regulators would add a new tool that would encourage stable, manageable regulations that support economic growth.

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

Canada Labour Code

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

Madam Speaker, it is real and distinct honour to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-58, which would ban the use of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts. This is a bill that is the result of a lot of work over a lot of years by a lot of folks.

The other day, I had a chance to stand at the press conference here in the foyer when the tabling of this bill was announced. I listened to labour leaders speak about the long history behind this bill and how long workers in this country have been fighting to have their rights protected to ensure that when they make that difficult decision to go on strike, they are not going to be at risk of violence and their rights to collectively bargain are not going to be undermined by the use of replacement workers. This is an effort that has taken place over more than 100 years.

Certainly I am proud to rise as part of the NDP, a party whose roots are in labour and a party that has worked for more than 15 years to bring forward in this House, time and time and time again, bills that would do precisely what would be done by Bill C-58.

This is really a momentous occasion, and I want to take a moment to read into the record part of an email that I received from a constituent who reached out and wanted me to understand what this bill means for him in his workplace.

He wrote to me and said, “Hello again, Mr. Bachrach. ... I've been a union member for over 13 years while working at Telus. ... I've seen Telus attempt to get away with bullying and scare tactics in the workplace to reduce the numbers of our union members and their voice, then benefit from it at the bargaining table, negotiation after negotiation. This time around, we lost more again. I plead with you to assist in pushing the Anti-Scab legislation forward to prevent large corporations...from allowing scabs or replacement workers in to do our work during a dispute and undermining our negotiations.”

That really speaks to the significance of this bill for working people across this country. Nobody takes the decision to go on strike lightly. This is something that affects the families of working people. They need to know that when they make that difficult decision and they choose to exercise their constitutionally protected right to strike, their rights are going to be respected and their rights are not going to be able to be undermined and they are going to be able to fight for better working conditions and to do so in a way that results in a fair and equitable deal at the end of the day.

That brings my time to an end. It is far too little time to do justice to such an important issue. I just want to say how proud I am to stand in this House and support this bill. I do hope that our Conservative friends down the way will also see fit to support Bill C-58. What better message is there to send to the working people of this country than to vote unanimously for this bill to ban replacement workers?

I have a lot of respect for many of my colleagues down the way. I have listened intently to what they have said with respect to this bill, and I do believe—

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

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the holidays, I wonder whether my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South would grant me a few words about the topic of the bill, which is the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.

I listened intently to what he shared with the House, and while he touched on many different topics, and I know he is a very intelligent person, he did not speak to the actual topic of the bill at hand, Bill C-58, which is about finally banning replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.

I missed the first 30 seconds or minute of his speech, so perhaps I missed it. If he could repeat it for me, I would much appreciate it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by wishing everyone a merry Christmas on these final strokes of the parliamentary calendar for this year.

I want to talk a little bit about the context of Bill C-58. I believe there is 100% agreement among all members, and probably among all Canadians, that we need more great-paying union jobs in this country. I want to talk about how we get there, how we make sure that there are more great-paying union jobs here in Canada.

The challenge right now is that, as a nation, we have a productivity crisis in our country, and productivity is what powers our economy. Let us imagine the economy of the country as a business itself. If, in fact, the business is producing things efficiently and effectively, then guess what? If there is a strong union in place, good wages should follow, and that is exactly what we want for the nation. Unfortunately, the factory that is our economy is not keeping up with other OECD countries.

Let us unpack productivity. What does “productivity” mean? In layman's terms it basically means how efficiently and effectively we are delivering goods and services. How efficiently and effectively is our economy running? The answer is that it is not great, unfortunately, because of a number of standards. Productivity in itself is basically a three-legged stool. One leg is technology; another is capital investment, and the other is workers. I will go through those legs one by one to make sure we understand what the challenges are and why, unfortunately, the government is just not meeting the challenges.

I will start with technology. It makes sense, and it has been true since the Roman Empire and even before it, that a society or an economy that has leading technology will have the ability to bring prosperity, or prosperity relative to the rest of the world, to its shores. Unfortunately, in Canada, we have a government that is stifling technology and innovation. For multiple years, going on almost a decade, in fact, we have been calling on the government for open banking legislation that was supposed to be here a year ago, and a year before that. Finally, in the fall economic statement, we got a promise for another promise to have open banking legislation. It was supposed to be here years and years ago. In the U.K., open banking has saved customers, depending on which academic or economist one approves of, between $1 billion and $10 billion. That is money we are leaving on the table every year because the government cannot get out of its own way.

We can look at legislation with respect to innovation. Around the world, there is a lot of innovation about how we nurture the small or medium-sized technology companies and make them into the behemoths that they are. Unfortunately, in Canada, we are struggling with that. We have innovations like a patent box, which is available to the government as a tool. We have special regulatory and tax breaks that we can give companies, not just to move factories onto our shores by giving multinationals billions and billions of dollars, but also by creating businesses here at home, and we are failing there when it comes to the technology aspect.

Another element of the technology world where we are letting people down is real-time rail. Most, if not all, G7 countries have real-time rail. People at home might ask me what the heck real-time rail is. Real-time rail is just having money travel instantly. A person may say that when they do an electronic funds transfer to their friend to pay half of the dinner bill, it seems to go immediately. However, in reality, while it seems to go immediately, what actually happens is that the financial institutions are fronting the money, and then the money comes back.

Our current money transfer payment system is really held together by duct tape and a dream. It will break down, mark my words, at some point if we do not have some legislative innovation to allow a real-time rail system, which most of the other G7 and OECD countries have. That is an issue because the flows of capital and the flows of transfer are incredibly important to an innovation economy.

We have some great start-ups and great fintechs across this country, but the government seems to be doing everything it can to stifle their development. There are tremendous opportunities. By the way, these are not partisan issues. It was, I believe, both in the Liberal policy items and in the Conservative policy items in the last election to have open banking, but we just need to deliver. That is the problem. Many times, my issue with the government is not so much ideology; it is just competency. These are things every other country seems to get done but that this country cannot.

Second, the other leg I talked about was capital investment. This is the money that powers the technology that powers the worker. We have decisions to make as a society as to how much money we put into the public sector, which is incredibly important, and how much money we put into the private sector, which I would argue is just as important, if not more so. The private sector is that economy; it is what is driving the money flow. If we do not have a vibrant private sector generating revenue and income for the rest of our economy, that means we will not have a vibrant public sector, because the taxes come from the private sector. They come from the small business owner who is working 20 hours out of a 24-hour day.

However, our current regulatory regime, as well as our taxation regime, is not fair to these individuals. In fact, even the government's approach to business is stifling growth. It is preventing winning from happening. I say this not for partisan reasons per se, but it does sort of illuminate where the government stands with respect to business. When it called small business owners tax cheats, that not only affects the bottom line; it also affects the way people think about business. It shows the way the government thinks about business, when in reality, without strong businesses, without entrepreneurs and without doers in our society, we will not have the revenue we need to fund our very important public sector programs.

The final leg I am going to talk about today is with respect to workers. Our workers are, I think, and in fact I know, the best in the world. We have so many intelligent, hard-working women and men across this great country who go to work every day, but what has happened to them over the last eight years is just not fair. I do not know how else to put it. Let us start by discussing what the government is doing directly, and then we can talk about what it is doing indirectly, to our workers. There is something called the marginal effective tax rate, which is how much one pays to the government for the next dollar. That involves both taxation and clawbacks. It is shocking to me that there are Canadians earning less than $50,000 who, on their next dollar earned, will be giving upwards of 70¢, 80¢ or even 90¢ back to a government. Can one imagine?

For those of us who have children, imagine saying to them that they are going to be given an allowance. They are to shovel the snow, which is no doubt coming, or rake the leaves, or whatever, and they will be given $10 an hour to do it. However, by the way, $9 an hour is going to be taken back. It is unbelievable the impact that taking away from workers would have.

In sum, we need to improve the productivity of our country through reductions in red tape and reductions in taxation so we can have the productivity we need to make sure there are great high-paying union jobs across this country.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by talking about democracy, union democracy.

There are some people who think that unions do whatever they want, however they want, but that is not at all true. First, it is a recognized right, is it not? Then, people at the head of unions are elected. I feel like saying that sometimes these are ejection seats when members are not pleased, are not satisfied. Union leaders do not do whatever they want, however they want, and their power is limited by the will of their members. I know something about that, having been the president of a 10,000-member union for 10 years. Democracy applies, as I always say.

Now that I have explained that a union is a very democratic body, I will come back to the matter at hand.

In nearly every one of their speeches, my colleagues have said from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of this important bill. I would like to add a few points. We will have hoped and waited a long time for something like this. As the saying goes, better late than never. Anti-scab legislation is a legislative tool that allows workers who, in order to gain respect and decent working conditions, must use the ultimate pressure tactic, a strike, to achieve that. Nobody is ever excited to have to go on strike.

My speech will be largely inspired by a file on this subject prepared by Unifor. Unifor was founded by two major Canadian unions: the Canadian Auto Workers Union and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. Unifor has a few more members than my union. It has 315,000 members, 696 locals and 29 sectors. The people at Unifor know what they are talking about. I see this legislation as nothing less than a matter of fundamental respect. I will take my cue from Unifor and share its premise:

Scabs tear apart communities, pull down workers and prolong disputes—something, we at Unifor, know all too well.

Since Unifor formed in 2013, our three longest labour disputes in terms of overall days lost involved the use of scabs. Labour disputes that involved scabs lasted on average six times longer than those without scabs.

Scabs remove any incentive for the boss to bargain fairly and they tip the balance of power away from workers trying to exercise their right to withdraw services when an employer is unreasonable.

What Unifor said on its website is clear.

It is always a good idea to remind the House that Quebec implemented this sort of legislative framework in 1977. There are, perhaps, a lot of people here who were not even born yet or who were not very old at the time, and so they may not be as aware of the harmful effects that the lack of such legislation can bring about. It is a matter of conviction. It is a matter of perception. However, the Quebec law has its limits. It does not apply to federally regulated employees.

At the core of all this is the idea of respect, respect for workers and their loyalty. It is also about respecting their legitimate request to be heard by their employers. It is about ensuring that, when the time comes to renegotiate an expired collective agreement, there is a real possibility of engaging in negotiations that are as productive, honest and fair as possible.

Scabs are a direct attack on the right to strike, as is the use of special back-to-work legislation. Canada has used that tactic extensively. I remember it happened with Canada Post, I believe, when I was first elected. That, too, is an attack.

The Supreme Court writes, “The right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations.”

It is clear that the right to organize and the right to strike to improve working conditions are both recognized rights in this country.

It is high time this law be brought into the federal framework because workers in federally regulated sectors in Quebec have essentially become a different category of salaried employees. The same can be said in British Columbia, which passed similar legislation in 1993. This means that, in Quebec and British Columbia, not all employees have the same rights.

Here in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois has tabled 11 bills since its creation. There have also been NDP bills.

Our esteemed colleague in the House, the longest-serving member of our assembly, waited 33 years for this result after introducing the first anti-scab bill back in 1990 and 11 others after that. The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel must be reliving a few highlights from those days now.

I would now like to return to the background document prepared by Unifor.

The scab might be the single most polarizing figure in the world of labour relations. For employers, the scab represents an effective means of applying economic pressure when contract talks with the union break down, either taking some of the financial sting out of a lockout, or undermining the effectiveness of a strike. For picketing union workers, the scab represents a breach in the strength of the line, and a loss of solidarity and collective power. At the same time, the use of scabs completely destroys the essence of a labour dispute, that is, a withdrawal of labour creating a cost to both the union and the employer.

The provisions of Bill C‑58, starting with the prohibition against using replacement workers, including subcontracted workers—except in very specific situations—along with the prohibition against crossing the picket lines and fines for non-compliance, are the basic components of this legislation.

These clear prohibitions form the basis for additional provisions, such as those specifying time limits for each intervention or the powers conferred on the minister to regulate the setting of penalties.

Is it any wonder that business groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, are concerned about Bill C‑58? The answer is no. I am thinking of the activities of lobbyists. I will come back to that shortly.

Employers do not want to lose that competitive edge over their workforce, namely the ability to settle a labour dispute without any industrial or commercial impact when other people are being paid, ever. Their position is that, if the bill passes, it would deprive employers of the opportunity to mitigate the harm caused by prolonged work interruptions and lead to further problems in supply chains still recovering from COVID‑19-related shutdowns.

COVID‑19 is clearly an excuse for everything. My question, however, is this: What about the harm being done to workers, for goodness' sake?

In 2023, it is frankly disappointing to see such organizations shirking their responsibilities. I would say that it is archaic to think that workers are not being harmed in any way, and that it is mostly employers that are harmed when their business declines.

The Government of Canada's delay in implementing this legislation leaves me, as a former union president, with a bad taste in my mouth. There is no need to wait 18 months after a bill receives royal assent for that legislation to come into force. We have never seen anything like it.

It is not required for the government, whose role is to legislate, to give in to the demands of employers. Which brings us back to the issue of lobbies, who always use their clout, in every area, to weaken legislation and regulations.

I will close by reading an excerpt from The Scab, by Jack London.

In the group-struggle over the division of the joint-product, labor utilizes the union with its two great weapons, — the strike and boycott; while capital utilizes the trust and the association, the weapons of which are the blacklist, the lockout, and the scab. The scab is by far the most formidable weapon of the three. He is the man who breaks strikes and causes all the trouble.

I am going to be realistic and end on that note. We should not celebrate too soon. It could take a while. Could there be obstruction? Could there be an early election that causes Bill C‑58 to die on the Order Paper?

Although there is still a long way to go, the Bloc Québécois is delighted that workers covered by the Canada Labour Code will soon have the same rights as all other Quebeckers. This will correct a major inequity.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great personal pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, which would finally ban the use of replacement workers or, as we in the labour movement call them, scabs, in federally regulated workplaces.

Prior to being elected in 2008, I had the honour of working for 16 years with the Teamsters union and, unlike many people in this place, I had the opportunity to experience, first-hand, how important this legislation is. I have been on and walked on many picket lines in my life, unlike most members in the House. I sat at bargaining tables, negotiating collective agreements.

I represented workers at labour board hearings and saw unfair labour practices, where employers would fire workers who did nothing more than exercise their rights under the Canada Labour Code and under the Charter of Rights. I have seen what happens when employers use replacement workers to undermine unions and workers as they are exercising their constitutional right to strike.

The NDP has been Canada's political party for workers for many decades. Prior to its formation as the New Democratic Party in 1960, it took the form of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. In all of its iterations, it has always been a party that puts at the centre of our being the need to make sure that workers in this country are protected.

We believe, as New Democrats, that Canadian workers deserve respect, dignity, generous wages, proper benefits, and safe and healthy working conditions. We know that workers are the backbone of the Canadian economy. We believe that all Canadian workers should get a fair share of the fruits of the wealth their labour, talents and skills play such a pivotal role in creating.

In this venue or milieu, no entity has done more to achieve these goals than Canada's labour movement. It is through the hard work of unions, their efforts, their courage and very often their sacrifices, that Canadian workers have come to enjoy the many benefits that they do today.

I want to touch on just a few of the benefits that were fought for by unions, benefits that Canadian workers take for granted today. In many cases, these were fought for by unions, demanded at bargaining tables and, in many cases, paid for by the blood, sweat and sacrifice of Canadian workers on picket lines. They include the 40-hour work week; overtime; paid vacations; pensions; health and welfare plans providing workers and their families with eyeglasses, dental services and prescriptions; paid sick time; a voice in the workplace; and, most importantly, the opportunity for workers to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their work instead of simply taking whatever their employer is dictating to them.

These and many other rights were not given to workers. They are the products of hard-fought bargaining, often by workers who had to suffer great wage losses by striking or being locked out for these gains. They won these rights through collective bargaining and, incidentally, all workers, whether they are unionized or not in this country, now enjoy those benefits, paid for by those unions and the workers who sacrificed for them.

They never had to make these sacrifices without pain. These people did not do this only for themselves. They did it for other workers and for their children and generations to come. Many of these workers made these sacrifices at great risk to their personal safety. Canadian labour history is replete with horrific examples of employers hiring private security forces, often goons, to attack striking workers.

Some workers, many workers, even died. As they were laying down their tools and forgoing their wages to exercise their right to strike for the betterment of their fellow workers and for generations to come, many had to watch unscrupulous employers hire replacement workers, scabs, to cross those picket lines to perform their work.

What is the impact of that? When replacement workers are used, it undermines the workers. Workers lose money while they are striking, but employers continue to profit and operate during the strike, so that tilts the bargaining table in favour of management. It also prolongs strikes and lockouts. On average, labour disputes where scabs are used last six times longer than when they are not. It leads to picket line violence, divides communities and causes family tension and suffering.

I will go through a few examples in Canadian history. People may remember the Giant Mine strike, one of the most tragic events in Canadian labour history, which happened in Yellowknife. At that time, in 1992, Royal Oak Mines locked out its workers and decided to use replacement workers in that small community of Yellowknife. Canadian mines had not seen a replacement worker used in the previous 50 years. The scabs were used explicitly as strikebreakers. It undercut bargaining, enraged the local workers and split families in the community. The tragic result was that nine workers died in a bombing incident.

I personally experienced this kind of violence myself. The Gainers strike in Edmonton in 1986 was a strike that lasted six and a half months, and Peter Pocklington, the owner of Gainers, hired strikebreakers to break the strike of workers doing some of the hardest, most physical, unpleasant work there is working in a rendering plant. I watched as Peter Pocklington brought in scabs and saw first-hand the violence that caused on the picket line.

I remember the Zeidler Forest Products strike in the 1980s, where I saw scabs speed up as they were driving their cars toward the men and women on the picket lines, narrowly missing them and, in some cases, hitting them as they sped by, impervious to the striking workers' welfare. Lest we think this is a relic of the past, just this month I visited a picket line in Vancouver at Rogers Communications, which had locked out its workers in British Columbia and used scabs to cross the picket line to do the striking workers' jobs.

I also want to talk about the fact that the Liberals and Conservatives only seem to care about the rights of workers to strike in this country when the impact of those strikes is strong. They will order Canada Post workers back to work, and they will order port workers back to work, but right now, as we speak, there are hundreds of people on strike at the Sheraton Vancouver Airport Hotel. They are going into their third year on strike, and they are mainly women and immigrants. Maybe the impact of this strike is not as strong on the economy. In that case, the Liberals and Conservatives will let workers rot on the picket line for years, but if workers have any real economic clout, then, all of a sudden, their rights have less meaning.

The answer to this is to ban scabs. British Columbia has done it in this country for many decades, and so has Quebec. The NDP has introduced anti-scab legislation eight times in the last 15 years, and the Liberals and Conservatives voted against it every single time. Today, make no mistake, I want every Canadian worker in this country to know that Bill C-58 is the product of one party in the House, and that is the NDP. We forced the Liberals to put this in as a demand in our confidence and supply agreement. That agreement is not a mutual agreement. It is a series of 27 demands that the NDP made of the Liberals in exchange for our support of the government.

I have heard the Liberals bragging in the House about their 2021 platform. I looked at it, and in that platform, for the first time in history, the Liberals talked about banning replacement workers, but only in the case of a lockout. They did not care about banning replacement workers if workers exercised their right to strike. It was only in the narrow instance where an employer might lock out its workers that they were prepared to extend the ban of replacement workers. It was the NDP that said, no, we must ban replacement workers in all labour disputes, both in lockouts and strikes.

I want to thank organized labour, the CLC, the building trades and the Teamsters union. I also want to and give a shout-out to all my brothers and sisters in Teamsters Local 31 and Teamsters Canada across this country, who have been fighting for decades for this very basic and equitable measure in Canadian labour law.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

I will read the summary of this bill, because I think it is important. The bill has the following objectives:

(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.

This bill gives me the opportunity to talk about what is unfortunately wrong with Canada right now, about public trust in this government and about how the government is turning its back on Canadian workers. We agree that Canadian workers need to be protected, of course, but unfortunately, this government is incapable of doing so. There is a lot of evidence to prove it. This government says it will be able to implement this bill in 18 months, as set out in the bill. We do not believe that. We are convinced that, unfortunately, the government has no intention of implementing this bill.

We have seen proof of this on several occasions in the past. Unfortunately, this government has failed to keep a number of promises. Just look at the first promise made in 2015 to run three small deficits before returning to a balanced budget. Unfortunately, there is now an additional deficit of $600 billion compared to the deficit before this Prime Minister took office. Unfortunately, we do not believe that the government will keep that promise.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned, this type of legislation has existed in Quebec for nearly 50 years and it did not take 18 months for it to come into force. From the moment it was passed, it was brought into force. The government always gives itself extensions. It gives itself room to manoeuvre. In any case, an election will be called in 18 to 24 months. Even if the bill is passed tomorrow morning, which it will not, it would not likely come into force before the next government is elected. That is proof that this government is incapable of protecting Canadian jobs.

We saw it with Volkswagen. I mentioned it to my colleague earlier when I asked her a question. Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt are going to set up plants in various regions of Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. They are going to bring in temporary foreign workers to set up those plants. However, despite all the motions that we moved at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we still have not been told how long those people will be working here for.

We realize that they are not coming to build the plants. They are coming to set up the technology. What I do not understand and have never understood is why we cannot hire Canadians and send them to South Korea, rather than bringing workers from South Korea to Canada. The South Korean ambassador went to see Windsor's police chief to ask him to find space to house 1,800 employees. They are not coming here to clean. They are coming to work and take jobs away from Canadian workers.

That is unfortunate, but that is how it is. We have seen the same thing in other situations. The same thing is going to happen with Northvolt in Quebec. It is a plant that will be partly set up in the riding of the leader of the Bloc Québécois. We really need to think about these projects. These businesses are going to get nearly $50 billion in subsidies, which will serve in part to pay the temporary foreign workers who will spend some time here and then go home. The thing is, we do not know how long they will be here.

This bill will probably not change anything. My colleague mentioned that, in fact. This will not change anything, so—

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-58.

On November 9, 2023, we tabled Bill C-58 to ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated industries during a strike or a lockout. When the Minister of Labour argued his case, he clearly illustrated how resorting to strikebreakers does no good for anyone: not for employers, not for strikers and certainly not for Canadians. However, the minister reminded us that hiring replacement workers in 2023 is still legal.

We have seen many examples where a workplace that has been poisoned over the years, often including the use of replacement workers, experiences long and frequent work stoppages. Each side will argue its position, but ultimately, the use of replacement workers can undermine the rights of workers.

Addressing the use of replacement workers is long overdue. Unions have repeatedly told us that using replacement workers can poison relationships, prolong disputes and keep people from focusing on getting an agreement at the bargaining table. That is not good for either side and it is especially bad for the Canadian economy.

The Canadian labour movement has long been asking for this, and we have listened. The unions explained that allowing replacement workers undermines workers' rights to strike, and that gives employers the upper hand. They argued that this imbalance of power leads to more difficult bargaining processes and makes strikes and lockouts longer.

The government believes in free and fair collective bargaining because we know that is how the best deals are reached, deals that bring stability and certainty to our supply chains and services because they are built on agreements and compromises between the parties. Thorough collective bargaining and stability are not mutually exclusive, as some might argue. In fact, I believe that one reinforces the other.

That belief is at the core of the legislation we introduced on November 9. Bill C-58 proposes to ban new hires and contractors from doing the work of striking or locked-out employees. If it is a full strike where everyone is supposed to stop working, employers would not be able to use members of that bargaining unit and have them cross the picket line, even to work from home, for example.

We are going beyond a simple prohibition. We are proposing clear timelines to address issues with the maintenance of activities provisions in the Canada Labour Code. If and when the bill comes into force, the parties will have 15 days to come to an agreement on what services they need to maintain to protect the public from immediate and serious danger during a work stoppage.

If they cannot come to an agreement, the matter would have to be referred to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to resolve within 90 days. That is important because right now, if negotiating parties have to go to the board for this kind of decision, it can take months or even over a year. During that time, the right to strike or lockout is suspended while the parties present arguments in that forum.

It is also a distraction from the central issue, which is the collective agreement that they are meant to be negotiating. This bill is about keeping parties focused on the table so we can provide more stability and certainty for the economy.

I do not think it is overstating to say this would be the biggest thing to happen to collective bargaining in Canada in decades. We recognize that the ability to form a union, bargain collectively and strike is essential to a healthy workforce. Tensions can be extremely high during a work stoppage, and this only gets compounded by the use of replacement workers, which many people feel poisons the atmosphere, makes it hard for relationships to come back to normal and can prolong disputes.

We need employers and unions to come to the table ready to bargain and to get serious about getting things done. This legislation is pushing us in that direction. The lesson from history is that collective bargaining is successful when the parties recognize they have to sit down and negotiate fairly with each other.

The ban on the use of replacement workers would set the table for free and fair collective bargaining. The timelines for establishing maintenance of activities agreements would add structure to that portion of the bargaining process. It is amazing what happens when we allow room for unions and employers to come to a deal. That is where strong labour relations are forged, where the best deals are made and where we get stability for our economy.

As the Minister of Labour said, “Our economy depends on employers and workers negotiating an agreement at the table.” By tackling head-on the problem of poisoned workplaces and prolonged disputes, this legislation would bring more stability, more certainty and better collective agreements. We believe that stability and certainty in our supply chains and services are essential. This bill would deliver on that. It is good for unions, good for employers and good for Canadians.

Quebec has had a ban on replacement workers for going on close to five decades now. Successive governments have protected the legislation because they recognize its importance. In British Columbia, we have seen the same thing, and successive governments there have also maintained the legislation. It is important to point out that neither of those economies has collapsed. Businesses continue to open, operate and be profitable in those jurisdictions.

The legislation before us is not anti-employer, nor is it unreasonable. I know that unions are often seen as wanting to take away something from employers, but when workers are better off, we all benefit. Tackling problems is hard work, but when two parties sit down together to defend their interests, they find compromises and an agreement. Bill C-58 would encourage unions and employers to do exactly that.

Bea Bruske, who is the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said, “The legislation will lead to less labour disruptions, fewer work stoppages and will help build a more balanced economy”. Lana Payne, who leads Unifor's nearly 70,000 members, said, “Finally, a government is taking important steps to uphold workers' fundamental right to [collective bargaining]”. She said that collective bargaining is something that would change lives, lift workers up and build equality and equity.

I would encourage all members to read the bill and to read what union leaders are saying, because what we have done here is so important to our economy. This is about the stability and the certainty that come with not being distracted by anything other than finding the solution at the table. That is where strong and lasting contracts are formed.

With clear and fair rules in place, we may be able to avoid unnecessary strikes and lockouts, which would create more stability for Canadians and more certainty for investors. That is what we would be doing with Bill C-58. It is a strong bill that reflects needed change in this country. It is how we build a successful economy and a successful country. The time to get this done is now. That is why I am asking each member to support Bill C-58.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am talking about Bill C-58, but in talking about that bill, we need to put it in a historical context of why the Conservatives have been so anti-worker and so anti-union and have been repeatedly unafraid to use a legislative sledgehammer against workers and their unions in federally regulated sectors. That is what Bill C-58 is designed to protect, and Canadians need to understand they have a long history of being anti-worker and anti-union. This is a chance for them to try to redeem themselves from that shameful history.

Before the Liberals think they are going to get off the hook in my speech, let us turn to the Liberals and back-to-work legislation because both of these parties are equally guilty when it comes to that.

In 2018, the Liberals brought in Bill C-89, which ended the postal strikes and forced the Canadian Union of Postal Workers back to work.

In 2021, there was Bill C-29, which ended the strike of CUPE local 375 and its fight against the Port of Montreal.

Before my Conservative colleagues get a little too high on their horse, I would like to point out for both of those bills the Conservatives supported the Liberals, showing that when it comes to controlling workers and fighting against their interests, these parties more often than not have been voting in lockstep.

This is important, because if we look at the different lines of work that are covered by the Canada Labour Code we are talking about federally regulated workers in air transportation, banks, grain elevators, feed and seed mills, most federal Crown corporations, ports, marine shipping and ferries, canals, bridges and pipelines, postal and courier service, radio and television broadcasting, railways and many more. This legislation would impact thousands of workers, and it is important we show a united front and demonstrate that as members of Parliament we have their backs and are putting in legislative safeguards.

The history of Canada is one of labour fighting for its rights against corporations. There has been too much corporate deference over the last number of decades, and I am proud to see how that pendulum is starting to swing back into workers' favour these days. They are becoming more militant, more assured of their rights and more ready to use their collective bargaining to achieve those more powerful working conditions and better paycheques for themselves. I am proud to be able to stand in this place and offer them support.

Seeing as I am in the closing minute of my speech, I want to take this final opportunity I have in the House to wish all of my colleagues from all political parties a very merry Christmas and a very happy new year. We have had strong and principled debates and arguments in this place, but I hope everyone in this place has the opportunity over Christmas to spend some much needed time with their families and their friends and to reconnect with their constituents. I look forward to seeing everyone back here in 2024 as we continue the hard work of governing this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand why he is uncomfortable with my speech right now. I am talking about a history of the Conservative government intervening and forcing workers back to work when we are talking about a bill, Bill C-58, which is designed to protect those collective bargaining rights. That is the context of my speech. I understand if he is uncomfortable taking a little walk down memory lane as we talk about Bill C-58.

We can also talk about 2012, when again the Conservative government intervened in a railway strike, demonstrating again it has no problem using a legislative sledgehammer against unions and workers. I hope on Bill C-58 its members stand up one day to vote in favour of this bill.

It was not just the government, because in the previous Harper government we had two private members' bill, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I don't think that Bill C-58 has passed yet, so I think we can still use that language.

I'll take that as everyone being in agreement. Thank you very much.

You have the floor, Mr. Genuis.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to be able to rise in the House today to speak to this important bill, Bill C-58, which I do want to note is a part of the confidence-and-supply agreement that we have with the government. I want to quote from a section of that agreement under the heading, “A better deal for workers”. It reads:

Introducing legislation by the end of 2023 to prohibit the use of replacement workers, “scabs,” when a union employer in a federally regulated industry has locked out employees or is in a strike.

That was an important part of the agreement. That is why I am so happy to see this bill. We need to stand in this place every single day as representatives of our constituents and show that we are here to fight for workers. They deserve our respect, better wages and better working conditions. When we look at the history of collective bargaining in this country, it is the union movement that has done that.

I think of my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, going back to the 1920s and the 1930s. I come from a part of Canada where the forestry industry was dominant. If members ever go out to British Columbia, to the beautiful forests of Vancouver Island, they will see trees that they would have thought could only exist in their imagination. There was a massive timber industry. It was back then during the labour unrest of the 1920s and the 1930s from the absolutely brutal working conditions that workers were subjected to, with low pay, dangerous working conditions and everything else, when the worker militancy in the forests of British Columbia was born. Those workers used their power to fight for rights. That is a small part of the history of Canada. I am so proud of that heritage from the part of the world that I come from.

I am so proud to be a member of a party that is of the workers and for the workers. Everyone knows, of course, that our party, the NDP, was formed in 1961 as an alliance between the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress. We carry that heritage proudly with us to this day.

This bill is particularly important because, in the last 15 years, the NDP has introduced eight anti-scab bills. The last time they came up for a vote in 2016, it was the Liberals and the Conservatives that teamed up together to defeat it. We often are accused of having a short memory in this place, so I will say that into the record. In 2016, it was the Liberals and the Conservatives that teamed up together to defeat our last attempt to bring in anti-scab legislation.

I do not know where the Conservatives are going to stand on this bill. They have tried so desperately and spent millions of dollars to try and recast themselves as a party for the workers. They like to make their YouTube videos. I have yet to see the Leader of the Opposition out on a picket line. I still do not know where they are going to stand on this bill. Every time it has come to actual action to stand up for workers, they are more interested in their words. This is a moment to stand in this place through a vote to show that they are in favour of actual legislative change that is going to help the working movement.

I am proud that we have not given up on this issue. That is why we can stand here proudly, offer our support to Bill C-58 and show the workers of Canada that we are committed to moving this forward, to making sure that the Canada Labour Code is there for workers and that it has that important change. We know that this bill would not be moving forward if it had not been spelled out in the agreement and we know that this bill will require multiple party support to advance to the next stage.

I have a few theories as to why the Conservatives have been so absent in this debate. The few times that they have gotten up and put speakers on this bill, they have talked about anything but the bill. In fact, we have often had to raise points of order in the House to try and bring them back on topic. One of my theories is that the Conservatives, under the previous prime minister Stephen Harper, have a long and brutal legislative track record against workers, particularly ones who work under federal jurisdiction.

We can go back to 2007, when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-46, the Railway Continuation Act. That was back-to-work legislation against railway workers. It forced 2,800 members of the United Transportation Workers Union at CN Rail back to work: the drivers, yard-masters and trainmen. It forced them back to complying with pretty brutal demands from the employer. Fast-forward to 2011 and Bill C-6, the Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, which forced 48,000 locked-out postal workers back to work and imposed wage raises lower than what the employer had agreed to earlier. Fast-forward to 2012 and Bill C-33, when again the Conservatives intervened, this time between Air Canada and its employees—

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

Madam Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. It has been called for by Canadian workers since before Canada was even a country. It would absolutely strengthen this economy and continue to grow our country, the greatest place to work, live and play. I can say that we did a lot of consulting. We consulted with workers, with labour representatives, with employers and with indigenous communities, who helped us craft this very important legislation. It is long overdue, and I would ask that member to support Bill C-58.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, it is great to stand here today with a great piece of legislation that is going to help out Canadian workers and help our economy get to the next level. We believe that Canadian workers have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations, where replacement workers are not waiting in the wings to take their jobs.

That is why we have introduced this legislation, to ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. I have negotiated on both sides of the table, for the employer and for the union. I know for a fact that the best deals are always at the table. I know for sure that banning replacement workers puts that focus on the table to get the best deals possible.

This is where workers get those powerful paycheques that our Conservatives like to talk about. It is where Canadian workers secure reliable benefits and job security. The bargaining table is where Canadian workers secure changes and investments that make their workplaces much safer.

The threat of replacement workers tips the balance in the employers' favour. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of true collective bargaining. Ultimately, replacement workers give employers an incentive to avoid the bargaining table. It is a distraction that can prolong disputes and can poison workplaces for years after. We have seen it throughout our history, both locally in my riding and across Canada.

Conservatives like to perpetuate the myth that workers want to strike. They pretend that workers have some devious plan to halt our economy. This could not be further from the truth. Workers drive our economy. Positive labour relations make Canada a great place to invest, which we have seen so much of recently.

Striking is a last resort for workers. Nobody wants to lose their benefits and live off strike pay. It is an anxious, uncertain state for anyone. It can hurt a family's financial and psychological well-being. Our government believes that it is in everybody's best interest to ensure that workers, employers and the government work together to build a strong, stable and fair economy that we all rely on.

Unlike the Conservatives, we will not feel threatened when workers use their bargaining power to demand better wages and better working conditions. As the Minister of Labour has said, bargaining is hard work. It is tense and messy, but it works really well.

I met regularly with my constituents about labour issues, including the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council and the United Steelworkers, just to name a few. They are thrilled that we are doing this at a federal level. They want to see the same kind of leadership to benefit provincial workers in Ontario as well.

Just last week, I was at the Standing Committee on International Trade, where Robert Ashton, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, said the following: “If Bill C-58 had actually been in use for the last couple of years, all these lockouts and these strikes, where the employers have been using scabs and have drawn it out, would have been a lot shorter.”

He joined a chorus of union leaders who supported this legislation. This includes the United Steelworkers Union, which reported, “Federal anti-scab legislation will help 80,000 USW members and approximately one million workers across Canada.”

Lana Payne, the national president of Unifor, said, “This legislation is a step toward levelling the playing field. It will be good for the economy and good for labour relations”.

I know the opposition does not listen to workers, but maybe the Conservatives might listen to the 70 labour experts who signed an open letter calling on Canadian policy-makers to support Bill C-58. The letter states, “By adopting Bill C-58, Parliament has a historic opportunity to advance workers' rights and improve labour relations in federally-regulated workplaces by:

“Strengthening the collective bargaining process and levelling the playing field in contract disputes;

“Banning the use of strikebreakers that inflame tensions and poison workplaces [for very long periods of time];

“Reducing instances of picket violence and vandalism;

“Incentivizing employers to focus on reaching negotiated settlements at the bargaining table rather than strategizing over how to best undermine union members exercising their right to strike.

“Bill C-58 offers practical and meaningful measures that would help to address longstanding imbalances in the labour relations regime.”

We have heard from experts, from labour leaders and from Canadian workers. We have also heard from members of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, who have expressed their support for this legislation. However, we have not heard from the Conservatives. In fact, today, the CLC continues to issue statements calling on the Conservatives to tell us what their position is.

It is no surprise that the Conservative leader, who has spent his entire career standing against working people, has not shown his hand. He proclaimed himself dedicated to bringing the right-to-work laws to Canada. These notorious U.S. laws are aimed at undermining unions; ultimately, they are about worse conditions and smaller paycheques. The Leader of the Opposition has enthusiastically served wealthy interests most of his life. Under the previous government, he championed two of the most anti-union, anti-worker bills that the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We repealed them right away. In 2005, he even opposed child care, because the workers would be unionized.

Actions speak louder than words. Recently, the Conservatives have been opposing Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, which would bring workers to the table so that workers decide how we meet our economic opportunities. Instead, the Conservatives submitted 20,000 amendments at committee and then tried to submit another couple of hundred frivolous amendments to put the brakes on it. The race is on to seize the greatest opportunity of our time, which is to unlock the potential of renewables, to create thousands of jobs and to drive sustainable economic growth. Right now, companies are deciding where to invest and build. The Liberal government is meeting this momentum, but the Conservatives are throwing temper tantrums.

Now Conservatives, again, have not told us where they stand with respect to Bill C-58. In fact, in 2016, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan opposed similar legislation, arguing that replacement workers offered opportunities for the unemployed to gain temporary work and valuable experience. Think about being so out of touch with working Canadians that one thinks temporary jobs to replace working Canadians are somehow a solution. More recently, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster complained that similar legislation would result in a higher share of company profits going to unionized workers. In a time of record corporate profits, it is hard to imagine being upset that working Canadians might get a greater share of the profits that they are responsible for producing.

We know how important this legislation is to Canada's labour unions and the workers they represent. We know that experts support this bill. The bill has the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. I urge my Conservative colleagues to reconsider their efforts to oppose working Canadians and consider, just this once, actually supporting workers.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for the hard work she does for workers in her riding and the bills she has introduced for them over the years.

I would like her thoughts on Bill C‑58, on its urgency and the good news it offers. In the meantime, there are flaws in this bill, including the 18-month requirement. Is that really necessary? Is there no way for this to come into force immediately?

My colleague told us that her notes list 10 points, but she only got to the third one. I would like to know what her eighth point was.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to applaud Bill C‑58, the anti-scab legislation. People have been waiting decades for this bill.

I am a Quebecker, and our anti-scab legislation was already in place when I was born. Now, a bill has been introduced. I would not go so far as to say that I was hoping for this back when I was two, but I will say that I have been waiting for it for decades.

The Bloc Québécois has been waiting for it, too. The Bloc Québécois has introduced several bills in the decades since 1990. My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who is still in the House, introduced the first bill on this subject. He was actually my MP at the time. Since then, 11 bills have been placed on the Order Paper, evidence that the Bloc Québécois is determined to protect workers and protect the right to negotiate.

I want to thank all the Bloc Québécois MPs and teams before us who strove to advance the issue of justice and workers' rights. I would also like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who introduced Bill C-276 at the start of this Parliament. Her bill also seeks to ban the use of strikebreakers. My colleague worked tirelessly, just like the others I mentioned earlier. I commend her. She is persevering and willing to collaborate, someone who believes in social justice and who has a lot to teach the members of my caucus and, I hope, the other members of the House and all the people she meets and talks to about labour issues in particular.

There is an expression that I like a lot, and I use it whenever I can, although it is not mine, of course. It is the idea that, whenever we do something great, we were often building on the work of those who came before us. We are often dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, if I may use a mythological or fairy tale image. We owe a lot to our predecessors. There are also other people who worked to pave the way for what we have achieved at this moment in history.

There are other political parties. I would like to acknowledge the work of the NDP on this matter, as well as the unions. When I say unions, I also mean workers. They are the giants. They are the ones who came to us and showed us the value, the necessity, of passing laws to protect the right to negotiate. I would like to thank all the people who got us here today. I hope that this will move faster through the House than it has in recent decades. It is urgent.

At the start of my speech, I mentioned that Quebec has had a law on the books since 1976. I am sure we can come up with something equivalent for areas under federal jurisdiction. Time is of the essence.

A bill has been introduced. We were waiting for it. In the current context, we are theoretically two years away from an election. We would like the work to move forward, for things to happen quickly. Of course, there is filibustering in the House, but we hope that within the next two years, the bill will be passed, will receive royal assent and will come into force immediately. However, the bill has `an 18-month time frame. Why 18 months? We have been waiting for a bill for 50 years. Why can it not be implemented immediately? That is the first question. I think it is an essential question that we are asking.

We are also concerned about the part of the bill that sets out exceptions. We are still wary of the exceptions. Of course, it is relevant, but we still have to define what a “threat to the life, health or safety of any person” means. At first glance, it looks like it is intended to provide protection. We are not against virtue, but we also do not want this clause to become a kind of catch-all clause that allows employers to circumvent the bill and get out of having to uphold workers' right to freely negotiate.

Those are two elements I wanted to mention. The Bloc Québécois sees them as red flags. We would like to get answers very quickly. I presume that could be done in committee. If we can deal with these two elements that we have concerns about, we think the bill could be passed very quickly. I repeat, we want it to be passed and to receive royal assent, but we also want it to come into force as soon as it receives royal assent so we can protect as many workers as possible by defending their rights.

I spoke about equity and rights, and I would like to touch on that again. Reduced to its simplest expression, the bill simply aims to level the playing field. If one of the parties to the negotiations has all the power, it is difficult for the other party to assert their needs, desires and rights. I think it is almost a truism, it is so obvious. What we want to do is to restore the balance of power so that workers can also participate in the negotiations. This will allow them to reach a compromise solution quickly and effectively at the bargaining table, which would be a win-win. It is good for workers, but also for employers, which, in my opinion, have everything to gain from a law that will allow the parties to sit at the table and settle disputes quickly.

I have managed to address only three of the 10 points I wanted to get to, so I will pick up the pace.

I would remind members that the holidays are approaching and that the Bloc Québécois has always been a workers' party. We have always tried to defend workers. Manicouagan is a riding where there are a lot of workers under federal jurisdiction, in particular in the air and rail transport sectors. There are also a lot of people who work for the post office. There are workers under federal jurisdiction everywhere in Quebec and Canada, but there are a lot in my riding. I think about them, about the people in Quebec City and the dock workers at the Port of Québec, for example, who have been in a labour dispute for more than a year now. This dispute has been going on for a long time and it cannot be settled, precisely because there is an unfair power relationship. The employer has more power than the employees.

I would also like to remind my colleagues in the opposition of the following. I do not want to put words in the mouth of my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, but I think he said earlier that he was worried that workers would cause inflation as a result of their demands in the negotiations for a new collective agreement. I find that kind of talk dangerous. I would like him to discuss the matter with his Conservative colleagues from the Quebec City region, who are likely, if I am not mistaken, to join him in voting against this bill. They would be voting against the people in the ridings adjacent to the Quebec City region, who have already been paying the price for more than a year because MPs do not want to vote for a bill that would level the playing field in labour negotiations.

I will conclude with this. I hope that the Conservatives will get around to telling us their position on the bill soon. That being said, the Bloc Québécois will give the bill its full support, because we care about workers.

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

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. colleague wants to discuss Ukraine, because Conservatives have blocked and filibustered on several occasions when it comes to Bill C-57. They have moved concurrence motions several times.

I would also remind the member that I actually think it is really important that the Conservatives reflect over the holidays and perhaps consider changing their position, because it would be really nice to be able to show Ukraine that solidarity and unanimity that the House has always shown Ukraine. I am going to give them the time and space to reflect, to speak to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, to speak to Canadians of Ukrainian origin and to hear from them why this matters and why this is important, so that we can show the solidarity and unanimity that Canada has long been known for, which unfortunately the Conservatives, for reasons that I cannot understand but perhaps because of the right-wing American influence that we are seeing and the MAGA intentions of their leader, have decided not to support, based on falsehoods. Let us let them take the Christmas holidays to do that reflection.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers. Tomorrow, we will proceed with second reading debate of Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, again, another bill that we have not actually been able to debate because the Conservatives continue to move concurrence motions.

I want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes for the season to everybody who works here on Parliament Hill and to all of my colleagues. I want to express a special gratitude to the employees here in the House of Commons who have done an absolutely tremendous job, even when they were forced to stay here for 30 hours during a marathon vote, which was difficult not just for members of Parliament but particularly for the staff who were forced to work overtime and stay up all night.

With that, I wish everybody in this chamber, and indeed all Canadians, a very merry Christmas and a very happy holiday season.

Canada Labour Code

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, investment in the battery plant in Windsor is just the start. There are international companies right on our doorstep right now looking to invest $3 billion and to create thousands of more jobs. They want to supply the battery plant here.

This is why we are partnering with local unions to do everything we can to fight the Conservative campaign of disinformation. That campaign has one goal and one goal only, which is to erode public support for these investments and ultimately to pull the plug on the battery plant and pull the plug on the electric vehicle industry. The Conservatives do not believe in climate change. They do not believe in the transition to electric vehicles. They see electric vehicles as an existential threat. What is more, they call this federal Liberal investment “corporate welfare”.

Dave Cassidy, the president of Unifor Local 444, was on Parliament Hill two weeks ago. He represents thousands of auto workers, and he will represent the 2,500 workers who will be building the batteries at our EV battery plant, these Canadian, local, unionized workers. He said on Parliament Hill that if it were up to the Conservatives, the battery plant would never have been built in the first place. Thank God it was not up to them.

Liberals believe in climate change. We believe in the transition to electric vehicles. We believe in investing in workers and battery plants like ours. We believe in investing in manufacturing communities like mine. Most importantly, we believe in a true partnership with labour, with workers and with industry to attract game-changing investments that are creating a future for manufacturing communities like ours in Windsor—Tecumseh. However, it all begins by listening to workers, by making sure that workers are not just at the bargaining table but at every table to provide input on the policies that impact them.

Our Liberal government listens to workers. It is why the first thing we did when we were elected was to scrap two Harper Conservative pieces of legislation whose sole purpose was to weaken unions: Bill C-377 and Bill C-575.

We listened to workers when we introduced $10-a-day child care and 10 days of paid sick leave, and when we invested $1 billion in apprentices to train the next generation of skilled workers. We doubled the union training and innovation program, and we committed to the first-ever labour provisions for clean-tech tax credits, which will make federal investments conditional on companies paying a prevailing union wage, and to making sure that at least 10% of the work goes to apprentices.

We listened to unions when we introduced the labour mobility tax credit for up to $4,000 in travel expenses for workers having to travel to a job site away from home. It is why last week we established the union-led advisory table to inform government decisions on all issues impacting workers. It is also why we introduced Bill C-58, something that workers in Canada and in my hometown of Windsor—Tecumseh have been asking for, have been fighting for, for generations.

This is the right thing to do. Strong workers and strong unions are powering our prosperity. A strong government that is a strong partner stands with our unions, with our workers and with labour every step of the way.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House of Commons today to speak about Bill C-58, the bill that would ban the use of replacement workers.

What this legislation would really do is strengthen workers and unions by strengthening one of the pillars of people power, the bargaining table. I come from a proud union town, a proud union town that knows how to build things. For over 100 years, we have been building cars and machines and tools for Canada, and we are darn good at it. What our unionized workers, brothers and sisters, have also built is a strong community of resilient and caring people who look after each other, and not only look after each other but fight for one another.

One of the ways we have been able to build this caring and generous community is through the bargaining table, with hard-won victories that improved wages, working conditions, health and safety and workers' rights and that provided time off to be with families.

In 1945, 14,000 Windsor auto workers at Ford went on strike. For 99 days they protested layoffs, unfair wages and working conditions, and after 99 days, they prevailed. Those Windsor workers stabilized the labour movement in Canada and provided the labour movement in Canada with a gift. It is called the Rand formula, which establishes and protects a union's right to collect union dues.

Every September, thousands of residents march in the Labour Day parade to celebrate all of the hard wins of the past and all of the hard wins of the present, while also recommitting to the next fight on the horizon to improve the lives of workers. I was proud to walk with Unifor, LiUNA, IBEW, the millwrights, teachers, nurses and so many others who work hard to provide for their families but also work hard to build their communities.

I want to take a moment to thank the Unifor bargaining committee that entered tough negotiations with Ford, Stellantis and General Motors just this October. Those were tough negotiations, tough bargaining, and our unions came away with the largest wage and pension increases in generations. Those hard-fought and hard-won improvements not only lift our auto workers but they lift our entire community.

That is the power of the bargaining table, and that is the power we are protecting here today with Bill C-58. It is the power of the bargaining table that we are strengthening.

In the last two years, our Liberal government has worked hand in hand with unions and workers to deliver some of the biggest wins in the history of our community of Windsor—Tecumseh. It is true solidarity. Together, we delivered the EV battery plant, which is just one example, the single-largest auto investment in the history of our community of Windsor—Tecumseh.

To understand the significance of the battery plant investment and to understand the importance of labour and the bargaining table and working together in that partnership, one has to understand the road my community has travelled—

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

Madam Speaker, the question as to whether our Conservative colleagues are in favour of this bill to prevent the use of scabs in the event of a labour dispute, strike or lockout is certainly relevant. It is a simple question.

The reason this bill is under consideration now is that, for decades, the Bloc Québécois has been lobbying for governments to pass anti-scab legislation. This is also happening because thousands of workers are pressuring the government.

We have had similar legislation in Quebec since 1977. In Canada, however, it took significant pressure for this bill to see the light of day.

Will you tell workers that you support the anti-scab legislation proposed by Bill C-58, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we all know the degree to which there is a lack of respect for organized labour from the MAGA right. This is something on which we have been challenging the Conservative opposition party.

What will Conservatives do with respect to Bill C-58? Will they or will they not support the legislation? They have not been able to answer that question. I suspect, if it has anything to do with their pattern, it is because of the MAGA movement from the States that is coming to Canada via the Conservative Party.

Can the member say whether or not he is voting in favour of the bill?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the mushroom farm, we know that the bill simply gets handed down to customers and makes those Ontario-grown mushrooms that much more expensive, which is causing the issue that we see today in Canada's labour market where, right now, when there are open negotiations, unions are rightfully saying that the cost of living has gone up. Of course, there is pressure for those workers to receive more. That is the reason we are here today. It is because the current government ultimately has created an environment where it does not work.

Instead of actually addressing the issue by reducing its inflationary deficits, and instead of getting rid of its plan to quadruple the carbon tax, essentially raising it by 62¢ a litre, which are things that would tangibly affect every single Canadian, including those who are federally regulated under this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-58, the Liberals just decided to throw this out. It is something that they opposed long before. That is why we cannot let workers and Canadians and families fall behind. We know that the always-spending Liberal-NDP costly coalition will continue to be part of the problem and not the solution.

Getting back to the bill, this legislation would potentially impact some of Canada's largest airports and ports far more severely in big cities like Montreal than it would in any city in my riding. That is not to say that labour disruptions in federally regulated sectors do not have an impact across our country, as they most certainly do. However, I am just recognizing that some of Canada's largest cities, most often represented by MPs from the government side, will typically deal with a federal labour disruption first-hand far more than those of us who have rural communities in our ridings.

Therefore, as a B.C.-based MP who represents some federally regulated workers, I do ask these questions about the government's approach. Instead of addressing the main concerns about the inflation that we are suffering, why are the Liberals not addressing the root causes instead of just finding these small bills that affect only a very small amount of our population? Increasingly, with the Liberal government, we see that it is totally out of touch with where Canadians are struggling. When I see Canadians, particularly the citizens in my riding, in coffee shops, they will often simply say, “Where are my tax dollars going now? Are you getting good value for money?” The answer is that we just do not know.

For example, in Ontario, there are two different electric vehicle plants. I, as a Conservative, love to see different competing technologies fight to see who has the best mousetrap to serve the population. However, when we suddenly add the extra element where the taxpayer and the government are writing big cheques to subsidize certain activities, we start to come to the place where people resent that they do not know the business case, do not know what the contract is for these large deals and that we are bringing in people from outside of Canada. In my province, when B.C. LNG was proposed, I met with union representatives who said their members were prepared to work and have the expertise, even though they had not done one before. They included boilermakers, etc. They all wanted those jobs, yet we are not in the position for that today.

Rather than working for Canadian jobs and Canadian know-how, putting it to work and using tax dollars for a better outcome, what do we get? We get a government that is focused on the wrong things and not giving those opportunities to Canadians. Instead, its members are hiding at committee with the help of other parties, such as the NDP, to block those contracts from being presented. I lament that. I do hope that we have another chance to debate this bill so we can get into the meat of it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a great honour to join in this debate in the chamber. Before I get into the meat of the issue with Bill C-58, I would like to extend, to all the people who work in this chamber and also those who will be working in the other place after, a very merry Christmas. It is that time of year. While there does not seem to be a lot of charity in this room right now towards one another, I do hope that, when we are back in our ridings and have had a moment to acclimatize ourselves to our communities, we have that spirit.

A previous member talked about the need to help support people who are experiencing massive inflation and how difficult it is for many of our residents, whether they be pensioners on fixed incomes, families that have work or families that do not. This is a very tough economy. Right now, as we see with the food banks, this is a very tough time. I would encourage all Canadians to do what they can, if they are in a position to help.

Prior to writing down a few comments from my notes on this debate, I took some time to review some of the other comments in Hansard on this particular topic. It was very interesting to note that, when the Liberals had a majority, from 2015 to 2019, they had very little enthusiasm for a bill of this nature. More so, recently, since the Liberals have had a sudden interest in this bill, I have noticed a pattern. Often, when a Liberal member speaks to this bill on the topic of replacement workers, that conversation quickly shifts to what the leader of the official opposition, the Conservatives, has to think or say about this bill.

In reading the comments from various Liberal members, it is almost as if the bill is more about what the Leader of the Opposition would do then it is about banning replacement workers. Never before has the Liberal government appeared more obsessed with wondering how the opposition leader will respond. Further to that, I could almost hear some tears from the Prime Minister's office when they learned the opposition's view on this bill. We keep getting questions from people on the other side about it. We have been taking our time to study the legislation because this applies to every single category under federal workers.

I have not seen, in my time as a member of Parliament, a massive strike at a federally regulated bank. Nor have I seen it in some of the other sectors. Let us just bear in mind that, of the total workforce, this legislation would only apply to roughly 10%, or less. We might lament that there are not more federally regulated workers, but each one of those workers is important. Many of them might ask if the legislation would materially affect their situation.

We might have different views or perspectives from different industries, including the nuclear industry. I have not done that outreach with those folks who are federally regulated and who would be expected to work under this. It is probably because it has not been number one on their minds.

However, what I have heard in my own riding, and I am sure many are federally regulated workers, particularly those who are, we would say, middle class and those who are working hard to join it, is they find themselves in a precarious situation. Why is that? Interest rates have gone up. Those who are fortunate enough to have a home are asking if they can maintain that home as their mortgage comes due for renewal. That is a difficult decision because, even if someone has to sell their home, where do they go? Right now, rents have doubled under the Liberal government. Regardless of whether people work where the applications of Bill C-58 would apply to them or not, that is not going to help them materially with that decision.

There are other people who are working and who do not have a home. They are either subject to precarious situations, where they are renting, oftentimes putting themselves there just so they can put a roof over their head, not knowing when that will come due. Many of them are young and have dreams of home ownership. That has been washed away by this economy under this particular government. They see and hear articles, and little snippets oftentimes online, where the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that inflation could be better if there was not contrary monetary policy to fiscal policy.

Fiscal policy is the direct area of the government. People wonder if their government is really on their side. The Liberals can put up things like Bill C-58 to say that, but that still does not materially help people deal with it.

Again, there is the issue of gas prices and the issue of groceries, and we all know that the carbon tax affects that greatly. We have all heard about that Ottawa mushroom farm and the $100,000 carbon tax bill. The Prime Minister has been asked five times about how that bill gets paid, and he cannot answer. The rest of us all know that the bill simply gets handed to customers. Many of them are those very same workers that the government—

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

Madam Speaker, I noticed during the debate today that there has been a certain amount of avoidance from the Conservatives to talk about Bill C-58.

Going back to the Stephen Harper days, I can remember those two private members' bills. One made it harder for unions to certify and one subjected unions to more stringent financial controls than businesses ever had to deal with, as well as all of the back-to-work legislation. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could talk about his time during those dark days and how the Stephen Harper government went after unions, went after workers with a vengeance, and how we still see some of the same crowd here today.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. I am certainly very proud to rise on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, to end the practice in federally regulated workplaces of being able to bring in scab labour. This is something that New Democrats and the labour movement have fought many years for, and we are determined to make this a reality.

At the outset, I want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay who spoke about the history, because history is important. He mentioned the history of the Rossland miners and the Western Federation of Miners, and the transformation they brought across this country.

I am proud to be from Cobalt where the 17th district of the Western Federation of Miners was formed under Big Jim McGuire. The fact that the fight for the eight-hour day began in the mines of Cobalt on April 28, the international day of mourning for workers killed on the job, relates directly to the Cobalt Miners Union winning the right to workers' compensation in 1914.

My grandfather, Charlie Angus, died at the Hollinger Mine, and my other grandfather, Joe MacNeil, broke his back underground at the McIntyre Mine. Both were members of Mine Mill and then the Steelworkers. When I was growing up, anybody who came from a mining town had a relative who had been injured or killed on the job. However, organized labour fundamentally changed that.

The right of labour to organize, the right of labour to fight for a better future, is the history of our country and of the United States. They talk about the birth of the middle class in the United States as being the 1938 sit-down strike in Flint, Michigan where the auto workers were not going to put up with precarious work—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely I will.

I would like to point out that the cost of living issue that I have been talking about is directly related to Bill C-58 and the fact that there is more labour strife in this country. We have seen a lot more of it. Obviously, I am just trying to make the point, tie in the point and help them understand, across the aisle, that, in fact, the Liberals' inflationary borrowing and spending and their big-government solutions to everything are part of the reason we are having more labour strife in this country. If the Liberals understood the implications of their disastrous policies, they would understand why it is important to point that out when discussing things like Bill C-58.

It is also interesting to note that Bill C-58 would ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workspaces, such as banks, airlines and rail, which are all very important. Of course, the government is making sure that this would not apply to federal workers, just federally regulated workspaces, so it is one of the classic double standards of the Liberal Party where it wants to make sure that it looks to be doing the right thing, but we are not sure that it really is. It is just one more example of a government that is good on talking points and long on photo ops, but not really great at delivering results.

I am sure there will be some really insightful questions from across the aisle.

I would just say, in reference to the cost of living and the issues that Canadians are facing today, that, as this will be the last time I speak in the House before the Christmas break, I would like to wish everyone a happy Christmas and a happy holiday, and remind them to be thinking about their neighbour this holiday season. Lots of people are struggling. If people can support their local food bank, I ask them to please do that. Our neighbours need our help, this year more than ever.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether the two members are familiar with The Muppet Show, but they remind me a bit of Waldorf and Statler right now. That is okay.

Bill C-58—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will explain to the member, because he clearly does not quite get it. Part of the reason we have more labour strife in this country is, in fact, the inflationary spending of the current government. The excessive borrowing is causing everything to go up in price, and people in organized labour, like everybody else, are struggling to put food on the table. That is why I am referring to these issues. It is why I am referring it back to an issue that is completely connected to organized labour, and that is housing, which is the foundation of society: a warm, safe bed to sleep in at night. There are people working all across this country, whether they are in a union or not, who are struggling to make ends meet. That is causing labour strife.

My point about Bill C-58 is that it is the government's attempt, along with its coalition partners, to deflect from the real issues and from its failures as a government, including the massive borrowing and spending it has done for the last eight years, that is causing everything to go up in price and causing labour strife. If the Liberals understood the impact of their inflationary policies, things like Bill C-58 really should not be the top priority. It is an important discussion to have, but what we really need to do is get the cost of living down in this country. We need to make life more affordable for Canadians. Whether or not it is their inflationary borrowing and excessive spending, I know that the Liberals believe that the best way to solve any problem is to hire more bureaucrats and make the government bigger. However, in fact, the best way to make life more affordable for Canadians is to get out of their pockets and give them a break.

Bill C-58 is—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and talk about the issues of the day. I understand that Bill C-58 was not originally on the agenda, but it is still a great opportunity to speak about it.

Prior to becoming the critic for the Conservative Party on housing, I had the honour of being its critic on labour. I worked directly with our current critic, the member for Essex, who, I think, is doing an amazing job. I was reflecting on the comments he made about this particular bill. Of course, in his riding of Essex, there is a lot of organized labour and skilled trades, and he talks to a lot of people in his constituency. Talking to real people is a great way to learn what is really going on, and I am not sure enough of that has gone on with the current government.

I think about the importance of workers. Any great business owner will tell us that it is the people who make their business work. The best businesses take care of their workers. Of course, Conservatives believe in the right to collectively bargain, which is an important part of the process, but what I am more concerned about than anything is the need for this legislation right now. One of the situations we are seeing in this country is that there is an awful lot more labour disruption and more strikes, whether at the Port of Montreal or in Vancouver, and one has to ask why that is happening. I know, from talking to leaders of the labour movement, skilled trades and business, that a big part of the problem facing workers in this country is the cost of living, which is getting out of control. Inflation is driving up the cost of food and the cost of heating our homes, or even of getting a home.

We know that the labour situation affects the housing situation as well. This is one of the things we have been focusing a lot on. CMHC has told us that we need to build 3.5 million more homes in the next 10 years than we would normally build. That is a total of almost six million homes, which works out to 750,000 units a year. The most we have ever built in a year is about 260,000, which was in the seventies, when it was very easy to get things like permits and approvals. Today, the most difficult part of building a home is getting permission to build it. One of the major barriers to getting homes built is labour, the skilled trades. We need more electricians, plumbers and other labour. We have a government that, I guess, did not understand the demographic shift that was going on in our country and did not really prepare for it, but we have a situation today where there is a desperate need for more people to help us build the homes people need.

The inflationary spending of the government is a big part of the reason why we are behind the eight ball on the housing issue. It is why people cannot afford to pay rent. Rents have doubled. In the eight years of the photo-op-happy, talking-points government, home prices have doubled and rents have doubled. With respect to mortgage rates, over this last year, we have seen the fastest increase in interest rates that we have seen in 40 years. Of course, the impact of this is that the people who were hoping to get into the market are now that much farther behind and are never going to have a chance.

What the people who own a home are struggling with, and I can see the member is going to rise on a point of order, because—

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

Madam Speaker, today we are speaking to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, otherwise known as the anti-scab legislation that workers from across the country have been calling for since time immemorial.

The NDP has put forward this legislation eight times in the last 15 years, and it has been defeated by Liberals and Conservatives alike. We are very happy and proud that we have forced the Liberal government to table the legislation this year; we look forward to seeing it become law as soon as possible.

Workers around the world have only one power to balance the relationship with employers. That is their work, the labour they provide to make the products or provide the services that give their employers their profits. The withdrawal of that labour or even the threat of withdrawal is the only thing that levels the playing field in labour negotiations. When negotiations break down and workers feel that a strike is the only option left to them to obtain a fair collective agreement, if the employer brings in replacement workers to break that strike, the playing field is tilted steeply in favour of the employer. Employers have no real reason to bargain in good faith, or at all, with the workers.

Labour relations in Canada have a long and deep history, and some of the most important moments in that history happened in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, in the Rossland mines. In the late 1800s, there was a mining boom across my riding, with gold mines in the South Okanagan and silver in the Slocan. Some of the richest mines were in Rossland.

In 1895, the Rossland miners formed the first Canadian local of the Western Federation of Miners. That local went on to advance many of the first labour laws in British Columbia and Canada, laws that brought in the five-day work week and the eight-hour workday, as well as laws enforcing safe workplaces, the first workers' compensation act.

Unrest in the mining camps resulted in the Canadian government sending Roger Clute, a prominent Toronto lawyer, to Rossland in 1899. He reported back that compulsory arbitration would be less effective than conciliatory measures, and after another trip to Rossland, his reports led to the federal Conciliation Act of 1900. That helped create the Department of Labour and the Canadian system of industrial relations. Rossland, and the miners of Rossland, helped build our system of labour relations across the country.

When everyone in this place goes home for the weekend; when everyone in the country goes home at five o'clock, after an eight-hour workday; and when every worker in Canada knows they have the right to a safe workplace, they can thank the members of the Rossland local of the Western Federation of Miners.

That is the benefit of having a healthy and fair system of labour relations. At the centre of that system is the right of workers to withdraw their work. Replacement workers, or scabs, destroy that system. Not only does hiring scabs take away any power that workers have to undertake fair negotiations, but it also often tears communities apart, especially small communities that have few other opportunities for good work. If workers go on strike in that situation and the company hires scabs, those replacement workers are taking away jobs from their neighbours and relatives. This increases tensions within the community, sometimes escalating into violence.

Using replacement workers was common during early strikes, including in the mines of British Columbia, and there are too many stories of violence from those days. One of the worst stories, though, comes from relatively recent times, when the workers at the Giant Mine in Yellowknife went on strike in 1992. That gold mine had been the mainstay of the Yellowknife economy for many years, but a new owner demanded cuts from the union, then locked the unionized workers out.

The company then hired replacement workers to keep the mine going and to keep the profits rolling in. Hostilities quickly rose, pitting neighbours against neighbours; this culminated in a bombing within the mine that killed nine miners, nine replacement workers. It is one of the worst mass murders in Canadian history.

This is why we need anti-scab legislation. This is why British Columbia and Quebec introduced anti-scab legislation and have had it for decades. Critics say that this legislation may allow strikes and lockouts to drag on; in fact, it usually has quite the opposite effect.

What impetus does the employer have to end a strike if they can use workers to keep things going, to keep those profits rolling in? If anything, outlawing replacement workers speeds negotiations up because both sides are on an even footing. The employer is losing profits, and the unions are losing pay. They both want to end the dispute as soon as possible. Many of the longest labour disputes in Canadian history have been those involving scabs, because the employer has no reason to bargain with the unions.

This law would take effect in federally regulated industries, such as ports, railways, airports, telecommunications and banks.

We recently had a dispute at the Port of Vancouver, and we are studying that issue in the international trade committee right now. Some witnesses have tried to paint a picture that labour is the cause of a declining reputation in Canadian supply chain reliability, that the unions dragged out negotiations and caused this strike. What we have heard at committee is exactly the opposite.

First, this is the first strike at the Port of Vancouver since 1969. Most people in this chamber were not even alive then. The collective bargaining system has been working very well there.

Second, delays in bargaining were clearly the fault of the employers or, rather, their association, the BC Maritime Employers Association. The BCMEA represents the employers at the bargaining table, but it had no mandate to make decisions. The union would respond with a counter-offer to the employers' offer within a day, but the BCMEA would take a week or 10 days to come back with its counter-offer.

Negotiations dragged on. The strike began, and it took 13 more days to come to an agreement. If it were not for the delays and intransigence of the employers, we could have easily reached that agreement before strike action was necessary.

We must remember that there are two sides to every labour dispute. The best, fairest and often shortest negotiations are those in which both sides have an equal balance of power. That is what Bill C-58 brings to the federal labour scene.

The NDP is, of course, very much in favour of this legislation. We have worked hard and long to improve it and will continue to do that when it goes to committee.

Our big concern now is the provision, within this bill, of a delay of 18 months before the legislation comes into force after passing through Parliament. We have heard no good reasons for this delay, and we will be making the case in committee to amend that part of the bill.

If the use of replacement workers is illegal, that provision should come into force immediately. I can see no reason that corporations or unions need 18 months, a year and a half, to get their heads around this change to Canadian labour law.

I remember one of the first debates I took part in in this place, a debate on an NDP private member's bill, in 2016, that was essentially the same bill we are debating today. I was so encouraged that we could be making such a big difference for workers, but I was profoundly surprised and disappointed when the Liberals and Conservatives defeated that bill.

I have since, unfortunately, gotten used to disappointments in this place. However, with this bill, we have the opportunity to take a step toward hope. I hope we can pass this bill at second reading quickly, have the committee debate it in detail and pass it so that all Canadians can enjoy better labour relations across the country.

With that, I would like to wish everyone here and everyone in the wonderful riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay a very happy Christmas and a peaceful holiday season full of love and good cheer.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak on Bill C-58, so I will first put on the record that the Green Party supports this very important legislation. It is time for Parliament to act to protect workers' rights.

I used to practise in the area of labour law with a firm in Halifax back in the day that represented trade unions, specializing in labour law. I would ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to clarify why we are spending so much time on this debate.

I know he and other Conservatives have been told by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville that there is no connection in this bill whatsoever to having foreign workers come to any plant in Canada or any workplace in Canada. This bill is specifically to protect the right of collective bargaining and the rights of workers who have gone out on strike to not have what are called scab workers. That is a replacement worker. The workers at the Stellantis battery plant are not scab workers. Does the member agree?

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

Madam Speaker, this is the third time that my Conservative colleagues have mentioned the use of replacement workers, or foreign workers, in factories in Windsor or in battery factories.

Bill C‑58 deals with something else entirely. That is crystal clear. Although the bill refers to “replacement workers”, I think that the Conservatives know that it is intended to prevent the hiring of scabs in the event of a labour dispute. Its aim is to finally prevent employers from using scabs during a strike or lockout and allowing the dispute to go on forever. That is unfair. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. The question is clear. We are talking about scabs.

Will my colleague vote for or against Bill C‑58?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am always glad that the New Democrats are paying such close attention. If they would pay such close attention to Canadians, they would see how far off base they are with average workers, who I am speaking to from coast to coast to coast and who are attending the rallies of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton.

This is an interesting observation and it does connect closely to Bill C-58, and I am glad that the NDP member is paying attention. What we are hearing increasingly is that workers across this country feel abandoned by left-leaning parties in this country. They feel abandoned by an ideological focus on things that are shifting the conversation away from Canadians being able to prosper.

When it comes to the bill we have before us, the New Democrats are taking credit for it, yet I have seen them time and time again stand up and declare all the problems that exist within it. For example, they have stated that they do not agree with the 18-month window for its coming into force. We have heard from the minister who introduced the bill that there is some ambiguity as to who it would apply to. We see that it affects federally regulated sectors but does not affect the public service.

There are many holes in this legislation, and it is unfortunate the New Democrats seem to be so quick to sell themselves out for this slight grip on power they seem to have. We saw that obviously, which relates directly to the conversation we are having, when the leader of the NDP, only a number months ago when facing a confidence vote at his convention, drew a red line. The members of that party said that if they did not have pharmacare by the end of the year, the deal was done.

We see once again that we simply cannot trust what the New Democrats promise. We simply cannot trust what they say they are endeavouring to accomplish. The Liberals, in this coalition agreement, either have had some of the worst negotiations we have ever seen or are simply playing along with this tenuous idea of power or security, as they may be afraid to face the electorate in this country.

The member proved my point about how angry the New Democrats are about this. They seem angry about everything the Liberals are doing, yet they are the ones who continue to prop them up. That is no more true than in the situation we find ourselves in. We are debating a bill on replacement workers, yet we see the New Democrats supporting the government in bringing in thousands of foreign replacement workers on government-subsidized projects. Tens of billions of dollars are being spent to subsidize battery production facilities.

I will take a brief detour, if I could. I believe fully that a huge economic opportunity exists when it comes to energy in Canada, whether it is in traditional forms of energy or new clean tech. What I find absolutely tragic is that the ideological Liberals are so blinded by the idea that they have to be in control that they refuse to allow our economy to prosper. They refuse that of my constituents.

I am proud to be in the beating heart of Canada's energy industry. In fact, 87% of Canada's crude oil transits through a little town called Hardisty in my constituency. That may be an embarrassment to the left-learning parties in this House. The reality is that when it comes to the energy that powers our nation, that can power the world and that provides not only good-paying jobs to the folks I represent but the revenue and taxation to so much of what we have come to depend on in our country, it is an absolute embarrassment that the Liberals and the NDP have abandoned these hard-working Canadians for this ideological fantasy that is simply not worth the cost.

Let us get back to the foreign replacement workers. The situation we have before us is that the Liberals are quick to brag about the deals they have signed. However, what is very troubling is that while they brag publicly about the deals, they refuse to tell us what those deals are.

They talk about the number of jobs they are creating, but the misinformation, the disinformation and the competing information we get from the Liberals makes the Prime Minister's math that budgets balance themselves seem to be of top quality when compared to the scope of differences that exists between the different estimates we have seen on the number of individuals who will be brought into Canada, subsidized by Canadian taxpayers, and the dollars being sent to workers who are not from this country.

What is tragic about this conversation is that, in the beginning, it was a leader of the opposition who stood up in his place to share his outrage. He was outraged about the revelation of these foreign replacement workers and said that he was going to get to the bottom of it, that his MPs were going to fight for that every step of the way, yet it only took a couple of short weeks—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to observe the debate that has been taking place in the chamber here today on Bill C-58. I would note a couple of observations, if I could, because I believe they provide important context to the conversation we are having.

One observation that I note to members and to the many Canadians who I am sure are watching is the flip-flops we are seeing in this regard. We have the Liberals desperate to keep the NDP onside, yet it seems like the New Democrats are quick to sell out when it comes to holding on to the thread of power they feel they have. We hear the New Democrats talk tough against the Liberals in one sentence; then they walk down the street to committee.

The leader of the NDP said in the beginning that committees would not be affected by the confidence and supply coalition agreement, yet we see the New Democrats capitulating to the—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to things that matter to my constituents and to myself.

I did want to take this opportunity first of all to congratulate Tchadas Leo. He is not in my constituency now, but he grew up there. He actually used to be my sons' French tutor. He was just named on Amazon's 2023 best Canadian podcasts of the year list, so that is very exciting. He does tremendous work and talks about the indigenous realities. I really appreciate his work and wanted to acknowledge him today.

We are in this place, so close to the end, talking about a bill I am particularly passionate about, Bill C-58. This is about prohibiting the use of replacement workers and modifying the business continuity process. The reason this is so important to me and to the riding I represent is that we all appreciate the amazing work unions do.

In the House, I talk a lot about there being a bar of dignity in Canada. I feel the bar of dignity is sinking. We need to raise it up so all Canadians have a level of dignity that is acceptable, which means one just has enough to exist and get by without being afraid every day about one's future.

I really need to thank unions. Part of the reason we have all the social programs in this country is the hard work of labour unions. They remind us again and again to work for one another, to care about one another and to make sure that, when people work, they are treated with the dignity they deserve.

This bill is so important because it really is about looking at the system we have in Canada and understanding that, all too often, workers lose their power because replacement workers are able to go in and fill those positions when they are doing their important work of standing up against employers on issues that really matter.

The reality is that we know workers across this country deserve a lot more respect. They are working hard every day doing what is best, and they are still falling behind. This is an epidemic we are seeing in this country that needs to be dealt with. We need to see better wages, and we need to see better working conditions. The NDP has a long documented history of always working on the side of workers and listening to those voices.

In fact, when it comes to this legislation, the NDP is in an agreement that forced the Liberal government to move forward with this meaningful piece of legislation. We know this because the NDP introduced anti-scab legislation in this place eight times in the last 15 years. In fact, the last time it came up for a vote, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against it. This just tells us that there is a long history of the NDP being here, and we took what power we had with 25 members to make sure workers are better represented in this country and have more power in this country, and it is about time.

Like unions, and like workers across Canada, we did not give up. We kept working diligently. We know the fight is hard and significant. We know that because right now, across this country, people cannot afford the food they desperately need to exist. As that is happening, grocery stores are making some of the biggest profits, especially those big box ones. It is not those local ones in our communities, which often do so much for the community, such as pay for sports clubs and help out. An example of this is Quality Foods in Campbell River ans what it does with the fireworks every Canada Day. It is those big box stores that are taking home huge profits at the expense of workers.

We know, for example, that Galen Weston makes 431 times the average of the workers who work for him. Those folks who work every day on the front lines are interacting constantly with people. They are seeing people who cannot afford the groceries they have in their carts and need to put items back on the shelves. Often, workers in those grocery stores cannot afford to shop at the grocery store they work at. They have to go to food banks to make ends meet, and Galen Weston is making over 400 times the amount those workers are. That just tells us one of the things we need to address in this country is that growing inequity. It is happening. We can see it.

There is a lot of research showing that the top 1% continue to make more money and pay less in taxes while everyday workers work hard, get paid about the same and, knowing that inflation is impacting their income, keep working hard and paying their fair share in taxes. I hope that we, as a place that understands the bar of dignity for all Canadians, start considering that. Even though Galen Weston makes that much, the average these top CEOs are making is 235 times what their workers are making. I think that is totally unacceptable. It is something that all of us in this place should be addressing, and this is one step toward doing that.

What is a scab? A scab is a person hired after the notice to bargain has gone out. These people are coming from other employers to work in a facility as contractors not already hired by the employer until a strike action happens. As a member who represents a more rural riding, I can say that right now the impact this has on community is profound. We see people we grocery shop with out on the line every day standing up for their rights as workers and see others walking past that line to work somewhere. Some have to keep fighting and are not getting paid or getting the supports they need and it decimates communities. It is really profound. That is why we are fighting for this.

We also know that corporations are getting more tricky. They may have people out on the picket lines while getting people to work remotely. This legislation matters because it is for all of Canada. I recognize that both Quebec and B.C. have anti-scab legislation. We know where that came from in B.C.; it was definitely the New Democrats. However, it has to be across the country and it needs to be more fulsome so we can protect workers.

Is it not time we started to protect workers in a more meaningful and profound way? We know that workers have waited long enough. How many more years do they have to wait? How many times has this promise been made and not followed through with? We are going to make it happen and we are really happy to do this.

What this means for people is protection against replacement workers, which gives workers more power in negotiations and helps to have a more balanced bargaining table. That is incredibly important. We know that using scabs again and again creates unforeseen things. We have heard stories of the violence that often lingers in communities much longer than the labour dispute. We know that workers have even been injured or killed as a result of these tensions. When people are doing their very best to survive and see other people limiting their ability to do that, it raises a lot of concerns, and we do not want to see violence increase.

Of course, whenever workers are replaced, it means employers get to continue on like nothing is wrong, not acknowledging safety issues and issues around how much people are compensated. These things become difficult and this legislation is going to make all the difference.

I want to thank the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bea Bruske, who said, “We have seen years of record corporate profits while workers’ pay lagged far behind. Workers are rightly demanding fairer wages, better safety standards and respect from their employers.” She went on to say, “If we ban the use of scabs once and for all, we can take a real step towards less labour disruptions, avoiding work stoppages and building a more balanced economy—while increasing the benefits and respect workers deserve.”

We need to see a country that focuses much more on workers and looks at the power they need and rightfully should have. What we want to see in this place is more cohesion so we can support those workers. We know that often disputes last six times longer when employers use scabs than when there are no scabs. That, for me, is enough. We need to make this right.

Again and again in this place we have seen back-to-work legislation come forward and both the Liberals and the Conservatives have supported it. It is absolutely time to stop that. Let us get it done by having this in place.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his speech, but I do not understand what his actual position will be when we vote on Bill C‑58, which aims to protect striking and locked-out workers by preventing employers from using scabs during labour disputes. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. Federal governments of all stripes have dragged their feet when it comes to adopting such legislation.

Bill C‑58 will protect workers' strike and lockout rights and, during labour disputes, prevent employers from hiring scabs. Is my colleague's party for or against Bill C-58? That is what I want to know.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and proud to be able to rise in this debate on Bill C-58.

It should go without saying in this country that workers deserve respect, fair wages and safe working conditions. However, success in achieving those things has depended largely on the free collective bargaining process. The success of every business, every enterprise and every government program depends on all the workers involved: Those who clean, those who provide security, those who drive and those who provide child care. None of our economy functions without all of us working together. In fact, I would speculate that if the top CEOs and directors stayed home for a day, their businesses would continue to function, because workers would carry on providing those services to the economy and to the public.

However, we should also recognize today that increasing inequality will eventually undermine social stability in this country. We have had the spectacle of Galen Weston, a CEO, appearing before a House of Commons committee and saying it is “reasonable” that he earns, in one year, 431 times his average worker's salary. I would say to Mr. Weston that it is reasonable only in some other universe than the one the rest of us live in. In fact, it is actually even out of scale for the top 100 CEOs, who only, on average, earn 243 times what their average worker does.

A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives demonstrated to us that, in a typical year, and we have a new year coming up, before the end of the second day, the top 100 CEOs will earn more than their average worker in the entire year. By my own calculations, by the end of that year, the CEOs will have earned more than their average worker will earn in a lifetime. Therefore, we have a serious problem with growing inequality in this country, and one of the only ways that we can, on a practical basis, see progress is through free collective bargaining.

We face huge challenges in our society, and I could spend time talking about the challenge of climate change. We face huge challenges, as I said, in inequality. We face all kinds of challenges in our workforce, with labour shortages. How do we address them? We certainly are a wealthy and well-educated country. We have a dedicated workforce, and if we all work together, and everyone pays their fair share, we can meet those challenges. We know what we need to do.

I would cite the NDP dental care plan as an example of how we can meet the challenges we face. This is a health challenge, in particular, for many seniors I hear from in my riding. They worked very hard all their lives but did not necessarily have a job in which their health benefits continued into retirement, if they had them at all. I have had many people approach my office to say that the quality of their life is really impaired by their inability to afford dental care. How is this relevant? If everybody pays their fair share, we can afford dental care for all Canadians.

Some of my Conservative friends have said, “Well, you always support spending. Why is that? You will just support deficits.” I try to correct them by saying that, as a New Democrat, I do not support deficits; I support fair taxation. If we apply the principles of fair taxation, including a wealth tax in this country, we can afford to take care of each other, which is an important principle.

However, where did that principle of taking care of each other come from? It came from trade unions and collective bargaining, where workers joined together and said, “Let us not have some of us succeed at the cost of the rest of us in the workplace.” They negotiated contracts that provided fair benefits, fair wages and better working conditions for everybody in the bargaining unit, and the employers could not just reward those they favoured in the workplace.

I will tell members a door knocking story from an election campaign. I went out one Saturday morning, too early for me and obviously too early for some of my constituents. A gentleman came to the door and said, “Oh, you're the New Democrat. I can't support you.” I said, “Why can't you?” He said, “You're way too close to the unions.” I said, “What day is it?” He said, “What do you mean, what day is it?” I asked again, “What day is it?” He said, “It's Saturday”, and then he looked at me and said, “I see where you're going with this.” I said, “Yes, you're home on the weekend because collective bargaining got people weekends off, which made it a standard in our society.” He said, “Oh, next you're going to talk to me about health care and all kinds of other things unions got.” I said, “That's absolutely what I'm going to talk to you about.” He said, “I still can't vote for you”, and shut the door. I did not succeed in convincing him that day, but even he understood that a lot of the benefits he enjoyed as a non-union worker came from the work of trade unions.

Why am I giving all these examples when we are talking about anti-scab legislation? We know the importance of collective bargaining. We also know, if we stop to think for a minute, that most collective bargaining processes do not lead to strikes or lockouts; the vast majority of them do not. I have seen various statistics. In some sectors, up to 90% of contracts are completed successfully without any work stoppage at all.

What happens when replacement workers get involved? Again, the studies will tell us quite clearly that if replacement workers are hired by an employer, two things happen. One is that the strike, on average, will last six times longer than if replacement workers were not involved. The second thing the use of replacement workers does is to introduce an element of hostility and division in the community, because workers who are on strike see replacement workers as a threat to their livelihood. Quite often, replacement workers are hired through employment agencies or other ways in which they have no idea that they are being sent into such a position of conflict as a replacement worker.

What I think is really good about the legislation is that it would bank this practice. British Columbia and Quebec have already had this kind of legislation for years. Of course, the NDP has been trying to get it introduced at the federal level. We have introduced a bill eight times in the last 15 years. The last time we introduced it, in 2016, both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against anti-scab legislation.

The Conservative Party leader likes to talk about working people and how he is a friend of working people. I would say that the bill gives him a chance to demonstrate that concretely. His previous record does not show that. His party voted against minimum wages. His party, I guess I would say, has never seen back-to-work legislation it did not like. The record is clear on one side. If the Conservatives want to change that record, the legislation before us gives them an opportunity to demonstrate that they really are friends of workers and friends of progress, in terms of our economy.

Who are the workers most affected by the use of replacement workers? I am going to make a strange argument here, but quite often it is actually the non-union workers, because it is unionized companies and unionized sectors that set the standard that employers have to meet, even if those standards are not legislated. When we talk about the people who work in the lowest-paid, non-union jobs, they would actually be protected by the legislation as well, because it would allow unions to have shorter work stoppages and to negotiate better conditions, which would eventually spread through our economy.

Once again, I am back to the point I want to make. We hear a lot about how society and Parliament in Canada are suddenly dysfunctional. I do not believe that is true. I believe what we have are the choices that we are making. We make choices in the economy. It is not inevitable that we have great inequality. It is not inevitable that we have homelessness in our society. We make policy choices that have real outcomes that disadvantage many Canadians. We can make better choices and we can make different choices.

When we are talking about whether the House of Commons can do that, if the House of Commons appears dysfunctional to people, I believe that it is currently the result of choices being made by one party in the House to make the House of Commons appear dysfunctional and to make sure, as the party's leader declared, that we cannot get anything done anything in the House. He said he is going to grind the House to a halt, and we have seen him trying to do that. What is the impact of that on workers? It means we cannot get to legislation like the bill before us. It means we cannot get to a fair bargaining process for workers in the federal sector across the country. I represent a riding where there are lots of workers in the federally regulated sector. I know that this is important to them because they know it would shorten labour disputes and result in less hostility around the picket lines.

One last thing I want to talk about is that the improvement this legislation would make over what exists in B.C. and Quebec is that it considers the issue of remote work. One of the challenges we have now is that, in many industries, if there is a picket line, there is no need for employers to get someone to actually cross a physical line; they can hire people to work remotely. The federal legislation would actually be an improvement over what exists in British Columbia and Quebec, and I look forward to being able to vote in favour of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was wonderful to hear all the arguments that were in no way connected to Bill C-58. It was a thing of beauty.

I am going to ask the member a clear question. Bill C-58 is intended to prevent the use of scabs in the workplace so that proper negotiations can take place in the event of strikes and lockouts.

We must prevent the use of scabs. This still happens. At the Port of Québec, longshore workers have been locked out for over a year, and there are scabs coming in to do their work. That is unacceptable. We have failed to correct that situation here for over 50 years. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the Conservative Party is for or against Bill C-58.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my hon. colleague should come to Windsor and see the hundreds and thousands of workers who are building the battery plant right now. I would love to introduce him to every single one of them. There is a sense of tremendous optimism in my community, because we know we are going to have 2,500 great-paying jobs in Windsor. They will be for local, Canadian, unionized workers to build batteries, and not just for years but for generations.

Eight years ago, I remember, in Windsor, under the Conservative government, we had 11.2% unemployment. The Conservatives lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Windsor was ground zero for that. The Leader of the Opposition would remember that as well, because he was the minister of employment, or as I would like to call it, the minister of unemployment. A big part of that optimism is what the unions bargained for at the bargaining table: huge pay increases for workers.

When will Conservatives support unions? When will they support workers? When will they support Windsor? When will they support the bargaining table and Bill C-58?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, for those who are following the parliamentary calendar, that the government is making last-minute changes to the projected order of business, but I am nonetheless very happy to speak today to Bill C-58 and address the government's profound failures when it comes to workers, and talk about the excellent work that the Conservative Party has been doing and will continue to do to support workers here in Canada.

Our priority is creating powerful paycheques for Canadian workers, supporting jobs and opportunity for Canadian workers. In that process, our leader, the member for Carleton, has been travelling across the country meeting with workers, and hearing about their priorities and their concerns. I can tell members that the number one priority for the workers he meets with, and all of us on this side of the House are meeting with, is around jobs and opportunity. It is to have an economy that works for working people, an economy that puts the interests of working people ahead of those of the well-connected insiders the government has so persistently tried to prioritize.

We see this profound disconnect in so many different ways. We see the way that the Liberal government is focused on the interests of well-connected insiders and how it loves shovelling money out to consultants who specialize in encouraging companies to fire more people. These are the kinds of relationships the government is cultivating. These are the kinds of people the government is trying to serve, whereas Conservatives are focused on jobs and opportunity for workers, and creating the kind of economy where more people can work, prosper and succeed.

There are many different aspects in the government's agenda in this regard. We see the context, for instance, of its unjust transition plan. The government, in fact, is now admitting that its so-called just transition rhetoric is unpopular with workers. I was very struck by the fact that the labour minister got up in the House fairly recently and said they do not use the terminology of just transition anymore because workers do not like it. It is true that workers do not like it, but it was not the name that they had a problem with. It was the substance of the government's agenda.

The government talks about so-called transitioning workers as if what workers wanted was to be able to not work. A big part of the reason people work, yes, is for the paycheque, as that is a critical piece of it, but it also comes from the satisfaction they get from being able to accomplish something significant. This is what is so important about work for workers. They appreciate the ability to both earn a paycheque for their family and be able to participate in the creation of value. Both of those things together are important.

The government says to workers that it wants to transition them out of their jobs, but it will have social programs for them on the other end of it. First of all, I think members are rightly skeptical about whether those promises will be delivered on. Second, the people in my riding who work in the energy sector and other sectors are not looking for easy money. They are looking for the opportunity to be able to work hard and build themselves up, along with their families and their communities in the process.

This is the dignity inherent in work. The paycheque is critically important, but it is not just about the paycheque. It is about the satisfaction that comes from work, and this is something that the government just does not understand. This is an essential piece of why the government's unjust transition agenda is so unpopular with workers and calling it something else is not going to change the picture.

In the midst of this larger discussion about workers and the failure of the government to support or respond to the needs and concerns of working people, we have it bringing forward this legislation on replacement workers. I would say what is quite curious about the government's approach to this is that at the same time as it is championing its legislation allegedly dealing with the issue of replacement workers, the government is signing massive corporate subsidies to companies that are, in fact, bringing in foreign replacement workers. That is another example of the duplicity that we see from the other side.

We have been working on this issue at the government operations committee and wearing down a Liberal filibuster.

Conservatives came to the committee saying that we had evidence that over $40 billion in corporate subsidies was being used, not to hire Canadian workers, not to create jobs and opportunities for workers in Canada, but to subsidize companies that are bringing in foreign replacement workers. By the way, over $40 billion is a massive amount of money. It is a big number overall, but if we break it down it is $3,000 per family. That means that all the Canadians who as we speak are at home glued to CPAC, and I salute them for their dedication, and watching this are on the hook for $3,000 because of these subsidies.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be standing up today to speak to this, but I want to express that there is a little part of me that is also disappointed. I am always in favour of discussing the great work that happens at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, but it needs to be said that, today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-58, which I think is quite an important landmark piece of legislation. It is something that my party proudly supports. That bill is designed, of course, to make sure that collective bargaining is not going to be undermined by the use of scab or replacement labour. However, the Conservatives decided to move a concurrence debate on yet another committee report.

When we look at the Conservatives' history with labour relations, we can understand why they do not want to speak about Bill C-58. When they were in government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, they were not afraid to use back-to-work legislation. Indeed, when two Conservative members started speaking on Bill C-58 at second reading, they did not touch on the substance of the bill. I do not think they had anything to contribute. I do not even know if they actually support the bill. A party that is trying to rebrand itself as the party of workers now does not want to debate a bill that is protecting organized labour and the collective bargaining rights of workers. I will let Canadians make their own judgment on what that is all about.

Turning to the report that we are discussing today, the grocery affordability report from the agriculture committee, I am proud to say that this report issued from a motion that I brought at committee. I want to thank all members of that committee for granting a unanimous vote; I think they were feeling the political and public pressure of the moment from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, who had been feeling the pinch over the last two years on the spiralling, out-of-control grocery prices. We know these prices have been going up higher and faster than the general rate of inflation.

As a part of this, we have had the opportunity to question the grocery CEOs. We had them as a part of the original study, which we are doing now. The agriculture committee is now revisiting this issue, and we have had a chance to reinterview the CEOs. When we talked to the grocery executives, whether it was Michael Medline or Mr. Weston of Loblaws—

[Rachel Heft]

The ministerial order power for proposed section 107.1 only allows the minister to make an order to require a port authority or a person in charge of a port authority to take any measure. In situations where there's an ability to order workers back or to order some form of arbitration, it would apply to those individuals, or even potentially to any person, if it were that broad.

This particular formulation states that the minister can only, by order, require a port authority or a person in charge of a port facility to take any measure. It's really not targeted at workers at all. It doesn't allow the minister to order unions or workers back to the table or to binding arbitration. It wouldn't relate to strikes or lockouts in any way. From that perspective, it is distinct from labour legislation, including Bill C-58.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Does this duplicate or how does does this work in congruence with other pieces of federal legislation that already deal with strikes and lockouts, notwithstanding Bill C-58, which we still have to...?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

I would be very curious with regard to what the unions, such as the ILWU, would be saying about this. Has there been consultation with any of the unions with regard to this?

I do believe that it's going to kind of contradict Bill C-58 to some extent. However, I do realize that it's very important that we have backstops in place if we have another COVID-19 or if we have a natural disaster, to your point. We still have to make sure that we have commerce coming in and out of Canada. That's important.

Have there been any discussions at all with the unions and/or skilled trades workers as to how this implementation could affect them?

[Heather Moriarty]

I can't comment on Bill C-58. What I can share with you is that this applies only to Canada port authorities or those in charge of a port authority. It is very limited in terms of to whom it could apply. The scope of this is very narrow. I understand that Bill C-58 is on replacement workers in terms of legislation and those sorts of things. It's possibly quite different.

In terms of whether it would supersede or not, as I said, this is quite narrow. I don't believe there's anything in Bill C-58 for the Minister of Transport as it relates to protecting supply chains.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

I know that I am, somewhat, putting the cart before the horse, but I think it's important for this conversation. We know that we have Bill C-58 in front of us in the House as we speak, at least on the floor of the House. Again, just for clarification, would this supersede Bill C-58, if Bill C-58 did, indeed, get through the House without amendments?

I don't expect you to be looking at a crystal ball. However, would the minister's powers, so to speak, supersede what Mr. Bachrach is proposing here?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Partly to respond to Mr. Kurek's question, I think this addresses something that is somewhat different from Bill C-58, which deals with the use of replacement workers in the case of a strike or lockout. This has to do with the minister's use of discretionary powers provided for in this act. I take Ms. Moriarty's point that the intention of the government is not to use this section in those cases.

The reason we brought forward this amendment was to provide greater clarity. When union members and union leadership read the bill.... Labour actions are sometimes construed as risks to national economic security or competition, etc. It gets exaggerated in all sorts of different ways. The concern was that this may cast a wide net. It's worth articulating very clearly that it is not intended to be used in the case of a labour disruption.

I hope that answers the question around whether this is similar to Bill C-58. As was noted earlier, I think the risk is that it would be used to order people back to work, which is not something Bill C-58 deals with. Bill C-58 deals with the continuation of activities by using replacement workers. It is related, I guess, in terms of the fact that they both relate to labour, but with different aspects.

I hope that helps provide a bit of the thinking behind why we brought this forward.

[Rachel Heft]

We would have to examine that legislation to look for any correlation or impacts between this amendment and what's proposed in Bill C-58.

Having said that, I'm not aware of any conflict that would arise on account of amendment NDP-16 with respect to an order not being used for the purpose of terminating a strike or lockout.

I'll turn to my colleague for a policy perspective.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm just looking for the appropriate moment, but when it comes to NDP-16, I'm looking at the possible impacts this might have on the economy.

I wonder if Ms. Heft or Ms. Moriarty would be able to comment on some of the changes. I know there's a bill before the House right now, Bill C-58. I'm wondering if there's been any consideration about possible impacts between that legislation and what is being proposed here by Mr. Bachrach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the chance to speak about agriculture in the House. I am a bit disappointed because I was hoping to speak to Bill C-58 today.

My hon. colleague will know, given that he serves on the committee with me, that we are revisiting this issue. We recently had four of the five grocery CEOs appear before our committee. Of course, in particular, Mr. Galen Weston tends to stand out. He is the one the media seems to be interested in.

What I found interesting when Mr. Weston appeared before our committee is that he did not seem to be aware of how many of his employees are accessing a food bank in order to get by. This is a man who commands a benefits package worth about 431 times that of his average employee.

The point I really want to get to is that Mr. Weston's company, Loblaws, is one of the two holdouts on joining a grocery code of conduct. I want my hon. colleague to explain this to members of the House. If we have Walmart and Loblaws step out of the grocery code of conduct, what is that going to do for the remaining players? What does he think the federal government, in partnership with the provinces, should do as a next step? Does he believe that it is time to start enforcing a mandatory code as a result?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry, my voice is weak, but I hope you'll hear me.

What interests me at the moment is once again the whole issue of workers and collective bargaining. The witnesses today all seem to agree that the best negotiations are done at the bargaining table. However, I'm also hearing that the government needs tools, particularly to ensure that this kind of situation does not happen again. So I heard you talk about what we should not do, but not what we should do.

Mr. Guy, you do not agree with the approach we are proposing in Bill C‑58. Are there any solutions or tools that you think we should be using? I still think this bill is a very important measure to implement, but you may have other ideas.

Then I will turn to Mr. Eidlin to see if he can also suggest tools that could be used in situations like this.

Go ahead, Mr. Guy.

[Robin Guy]

We've responded to the government's open consultation on section 106. I'll say we've welcomed the review. We've made some suggestions. We've suggested some questions for the two co-chairs doing the review to look at.

My concern is a little bit with the size and scope of what they're looking at. I'll also say it was a little bit confusing that the government tabled the Bill C-58, which is anti-replacement worker legislation, before the results of the review. That's a bit of a concern on our side.

Yes, we've raised it through the formal consultation mechanism.

[Robin Guy, Vice-President and Deputy Leader, Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable members. Thanks for having me back again today.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is the country's largest business association, with an active network of over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade representing nearly 200,000 businesses of all sizes in all sectors and regions of our country.

As a trading nation, our infrastructure matters more to Canada than to many other countries around the world. In fact, $2 of every $3 that Canada makes relies on moving goods. This is significantly higher than the OECD average of just over 50%. When Canadian businesses can't import or export goods reliably, we undermine our ability to grow our economy.

Our west coast is Canada's largest gateway to the world, handling over $800 million worth of cargo, from agri-food and potash to critical minerals and household necessities every single day. That accounts for a quarter of Canada's total trade.

This summer, we saw over 35 days of uncertainty and disruption to our west coast gateways, including Vancouver and Prince Rupert, that caused major delays for Canadian businesses in virtually every sector across the country. Twenty-five per cent of our total trade stopped.

This meant that Canadian potash had to cut production and sales during the strike, causing those who rely on Canada for fertilizer to look elsewhere to ensure that they could continue to grow crops. This meant that businesses looking for replacement parts to fix machinery were delayed, causing production to slow or stop. It meant that fruits and vegetables that we bring to Canada were left to rot in containers as opposed to being on shelves for consumers to enjoy. Plain and simple, it meant that goods were going to become more expensive for Canadians and fuel inflation.

I will stress to the committee that the damage from a strike does not take place during the days when workers are picketing. Businesses need certainty. They need to know that, if they're importing or exporting goods, they will get where they need to go when they need to be there. If not, suppliers will go elsewhere, and it is not guaranteed that they will return.

When looking at Canada's record, many of our trading partners are beginning to question if Canada can reliably get goods to market. We saw this shortly after the west coast port strikes with the St. Lawrence Seaway, and we see this with the uncertainty that is looming at the Port of Montreal.

I must state that the Canadian Chamber respects the right to collective bargaining. We believe sincerely that the best deals are reached at the table, but when negotiations break down and meaningful bargaining is no longer possible, the Canadian business community expects the government to show leadership and act in the best interest of the country.

The Canadian Chamber called on the government to use all of the tools it had in its tool box to prevent a strike and then to solve it. We applauded the Minister of Labour for directing the senior mediator to recommend terms of a settlement to reach a fair deal. Unfortunately, we did not see that action until nearly two weeks into the port strike, when significant damage to the Canadian economy and Canada's reputation had already taken place. That dragged on for further weeks while the union failed to ratify the agreement.

The review initiated by the Minister of Labour under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code is a key opportunity to do this to equip the government with more tools to be able to avoid labour disruptions while protecting the public interest. We need to make sure that the government has the ability to force the two sides together and form a binding resolution. We can't have the government waiting on the sidelines for two weeks before action is taken.

Canada's supply chains are only as strong as the weakest link. Government can't solve all of our supply chain issues, but it must look to enable policies that will enable trade and strengthen our supply chains. Less than a month ago, the Minister of Labour told Canadians that our credibility as a trading nation depends on the stable operation of our supply chains and that we must do everything we can to preserve that stability. We couldn't agree more.

However, the introduction of Bill C-58, which aims to prohibit the use of replacement workers during strikes, suggests that the government wants to move away from preserving stability. It is, in fact, doubling down on Canada's being seen as an unreliable and unstable trading partner.

We need our leaders to engage in an honest dialogue that will provide our government with a tool to address our labour challenges while allowing employers and employees to bargain the way they should. For the sake of the economy, I would urge all parties to vote against this legislation.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Labour

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian workers built this country and it is Canadian workers who will meet the challenges of our time. We believe that workers do not just need a seat at the table where decisions are made; they should lead it.

This is the idea behind the sustainable jobs act. It is why we tabled Bill C-58 to ban replacement workers and why we launched the union-led advisory table this week. Of course, the Conservatives continue to oppose every effort to bring workers to the table, because they are scared of workers.

Can the Minister of Labour share how our government continues to bring workers to the table to find solutions to the challenges of our time despite Conservative obstruction?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

We see the legislation in Bill C-58 that has been brought to the House. I'll be honest with you. If I were the minister of labour for the Liberal Party of Canada right now, I'd be some ticked off that we're even talking about this at transport committee. How do you on one side throw a bone to labour and say that you're labour-friendly, and then on the other turn around and not do the due diligence, the justice and the really hard work of asking the really hard questions about who's going to be affected by this.

These are potentially 350 families sitting around a kitchen table with no food on their table, no pablum for their children's bottles, no diapers on their babies' bums, all because we need to accelerate a plan.

The Bloc Québécois member is now laughing at me. This is very serious stuff, sir. These are people's lives we're talking about. To accelerate a plan and not have a plan to go forward is quite frankly wrong and disgusting, and to smile and laugh about something like that is quite frankly wrong. I take major offence to that.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Oh, so you're all part of that grand total.

Could I just ask, what would your opinions be as regards to Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation that's being proposed?

[Robert Ashton]

For the longshore sector, the last time that I know of when scabs were used—and from 1935 to 1976 I wasn't alive, so bear with me here—was at what we call the Battle of Ballantyne, where the government and the police force used tear gas on the public for the first time ever, and they beat my people and murdered my people.

Just as one more thing on strikes and the anti-scab legislation, and I'll be quick, the reason there are so many strikes and lockouts happening right now in Canada is that workers are pissed. Workers are pissed off that the employing class will not share the profits that it's making and will not give the working class the due that they deserve for making those profits for their employers. If Bill C-58 had actually been in use for the last couple of years, all these lockouts and these strikes, where the employers have been using scabs and have drawn it out, would have been a lot shorter.

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

Thank you.

I will continue with you, Mr. Ashton, because Mr. Trudel brought up Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation that the NDP has put forward. I'm just wondering if you could comment on the effect that having anti-scab legislation would have in a situation like yours in the port of Vancouver. Would it lengthen disruptions? Would it shorten disruptions? I can understand perfectly well how it would benefit workers, but can you maybe expand on how it would benefit the worker/employer ecosystem as a whole?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I don't know if you'll be able to answer me or comment on the following question, but I'll ask it anyway.

What is your opinion on Bill C‑58, which would prohibit the use of replacement workers?

Could that help in terms of negotiations and speed things up?

[Robert Ashton]

It's Bill C-58. Yes, definitely. The 18-month delay after it receives royal assent shouldn't be there. It should be enacted immediately, to protect workers' rights. The other part of it is an absolute ban on scabs in the workplace. When an employer uses a scab, it tilts the scales. It creates animosity in the workplace that really can never be repaired. If there's a strike or a lockout, we don't go to work. That workplace should be shut down completely, because that truly does force the two parties to sit down and act like adults and get a deal done for the betterment of the workplace and the workers.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement, to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

I say the word “unfortunate” because, if it were not for the Conservative procedural games at the natural resources committee, there would be no need to disrupt the business of the House today. We are starting our third month of having to endure Conservative filibuster tactics, including a discussion on, seriously, how many haircuts I have had since we first tried to start studying Bill C-50. The answer is that it is coming up on three.

Constant interruptions and a refusal to adhere to the chair's rulings from Conservative MPs in the committee have been well documented for weeks. On November 1, after filibustering the natural resources committee for several hours on motions, amendments, points of order and questions of privilege, the Conservatives decided to challenge the chair, forcing an undebatable vote to occur. The committee then ruled on the speaking order and agreed that the MP for Timmins—James Bay had the floor to speak. It is simple.

The Conservatives then continued to showcase disrespectful behaviour and continued to insult the chair, making a mockery of the committee process. We have seen that mockery carry over to this chamber today with the Conservatives' trying to rehash issues that were settled by committee members following due process. We again saw it this evening when the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to make his intervention. It was a very unfortunate situation in this chamber.

Not only was this behaviour in committee disrespectful toward my colleague as chair, but it was also disrespectful toward the non-partisan staff trying to provide interpretation services, technical support and procedural advice for the committee. It is difficult for the non-partisan interpreters, when they are trying to ensure all Canadians can listen to the meeting in the official language of their choice, and all they hear is Conservative members talking over other committee members. It is genuinely a discouraging sight to see, and I expect better from my colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives also refused to let the member for Timmins—James Bay speak in favour of the sustainable jobs legislation for several weeks and, as I mentioned, we have already experienced that this evening. That has continued in this chamber, which is very regrettable. The message was clear: If one was not a Conservative member of Parliament on the natural resources committee, one would not get the floor to speak, regardless of what the committee had agreed to.

The official opposition is supposed to show Canadians why they should be the government in waiting. The actions of the committee members and the childish games have clearly proven otherwise. If the Conservatives were serious about doing the job and critiquing government legislation as the official opposition, we could have had the minister come to the committee to speak to Bill C-50, as well as to Bill C-49, according to the motion that had been put forward.

Bill C-49 is a very important piece of legislation for our eastern colleagues, relating to offshore wind in Atlantic Canada. We could have heard witnesses from each party, assuming the Conservatives would not have filibustered that as well, which they have done in the past when labour, indigenous and environmental groups came to testify on other studies, including our sustainable jobs study.

I have received over 5,000 letters in my constituency office from Canadians in all provinces and territories who want to see the sustainable jobs legislation move forward. This legislation would give workers a seat at the table with respect to their economic future, through a committee. That is all.

The Conservatives are not interested in doing their jobs as committee members, either because they disagree with sustainable jobs or they want to cause chaos to make their leader happy. It could be both. How does this help workers, though? How does this help Canada move toward a sustainable economy? The answer is simple. It does not, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way.

When the Leader of the Opposition claims that he is on the side of workers, let us remember what is happening right now in the House. We are currently moving a motion to break this filibuster and move forward with the sustainable jobs legislation, not to mention other disruptions of Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation, but that is an intervention for another day.

It is laughable that the Conservatives pretend to care about studying Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Rather than deal with any legislation that would help workers get ahead with an energy transition that is already happening, the Conservative MP for Provencher would rather talk about how great plastic straws are for McDonald's milkshakes and how much gas he used driving muscle cars in the 1970s. I am not joking. Members can check out the blues for the natural resources meeting on November 27. I find it convenient that, in his rant about plastic straws, he ignored the negative consequences single-use plastics have on our environment. He ignored how they kill wildlife, both on land and in oceans, as well as their impacts on human health.

The Conservative member then went on to talk about carbon not being that impactful, because “someone” pointed it out to him. Maybe he should listen to climate scientists when they say carbon is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. The world is now warming faster than it has at any point in recorded history. This leads to global warming and climate change. This is easily accessible information, but I guess Conservatives refuse to do their own research; they do not like facts that go against their infatuation with oil.

Sticking to the meeting from November 27 and the Conservatives' love for oil money, the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a lengthy rant, claiming that environmental groups demonize the oil and gas industry for money, not because they care about the environment. As someone who worked in national parks for decades, I find it insulting and absurd that the Conservatives would characterize Canadians who care about the environment as people looking only to make easy money.

After the member for Red Deer—Mountain View attacked environmentalists, he downplayed the importance of climate change and the actions the world took to protect the ozone layer. Former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney would have a problem with that. The member also insinuated that taking less action on climate change results in less severe wildfire seasons, with no evidence to back up that absurd claim. The Conservatives would rather talk about the last ice age than discuss how Canada can create sustainable jobs for workers now and into the future.

There is one point the member for Red Deer—Mountain View made in committee that served as a good refresher for me. He brought up the Organization for the Security and in Europe Co-operation Parliamentary Assembly and an intervention I did there, where we discussed how to get Europe off Russian oil and gas. The Conservative member voted against my resolution on carbon pricing in transitioning from Russian hydrocarbons, as did Russia and its closest allies. I can see the Conservative Party is following his example by voting against the Ukraine free trade agreement, which the Ukraine government has asked us to pass.

This anti-Ukraine sentiment connects to another member from our committee, the member for Lakeland. Last June, five champagne-sipping Conservative MPs, including this member, travelled on a lavish trip to London, England, and dined on thousands of dollars' worth of oysters, steak and champagne. One of her Conservative colleagues had his expenses paid for by the Danube Institute, a right-wing Hungarian think tank that has said, “the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are not Ukraine's sovereignty, but the victory of NATO, the expansion of the U.S. ‘deep state’ [and] ‘wokeism’”.

I know the member for Lakeland has a significant Ukrainian population in her constituency. I wonder how she feels about her colleague accepting sponsored travel from an organization that shamelessly amplifies Russian propaganda or her committee colleague voting with the Russians because they are opposed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. I wonder how workers in her riding feel knowing that she would wine and dine with organizations that defend the interests of oil executives rather than their workers.

Canadians expect their politicians to have a plan to fight climate change and to do so while creating sustainable jobs. Canadians are not interested in Conservative politicians wanting to make pollution free again. They want to hear how their government plans to secure sustainable jobs in Canada for the current generation of workers, as well as future generations.

As the world shifts to renewable energy, workers in the fossil fuel sector need to have sustainable jobs waiting for them. This short-sightedness from the Conservatives is very unfortunate for Canadian workers, who deserve to be represented by politicians who will prepare Canada for the green economy. The Conservatives do not care about environmental sustainability, workers or the economy, and their actions in the last few months have proven that.

We are here today because the Conservatives sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources refuse to do their jobs and study legislation that benefits Canadian workers. They have continued to waste committee resources; ultimately, this is taxpayer money. We had hours of endless points of order, with Conservatives refusing to respect the Chair and unhinged, fictitious climate change rants.

The MP for Lakeland seems to have taken on the role of Internet influencer, with her focus being on social media rather than sustainable jobs. In her videos describing our side of the aisle, she frequently uses the term “socialism” as a blanket label for anything that could bring change, invoking Conservative-planted fear in Canadians. One can maybe call it a “Red scare.” How interesting it is, though, that her province's Conservative premier, whom she supports, recently suggested turning their electricity sector into a province-owned enterprise. In turn, I suppose that through her own perception of the world, I should now refer to her as “comrade” instead of “colleague.”

In all seriousness, Canadians do not elect their representatives so they can act like Internet trolls. They expect their representatives to do the hard work of studying legislation and doing so in an honourable manner. It is time to end this Conservative filibuster of sustainable jobs. I urge my Conservative colleagues to do right by the workers in this country by supporting the sustainable jobs legislation.

Once this is done, we can move on to Bill C-49, the legislation regarding offshore wind. Let us work together for our constituents and the workers across this beautiful country, where the environment and economy go hand in hand.

Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In this capacity I hold a responsibility to ensure the advancement of our legislative agenda in vital areas of public policy, including the future of our energy system.

I stand here today to provide an update on the status of Parliament's review of two very important bills, Bill C-50, Canada's sustainable jobs act, which this motion specifically addresses, and Bill C-49, amendments to the Atlantic accords.

Both of these vital pieces of legislation passed through second reading and were referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources well over a month ago. Parliamentary committees have a responsibility to Canadians to prioritize the laws that are put before them and to review these pieces of legislation. This is a principle responsibility of members on committee, and I believe that is well understood by every member in this House.

However, I regret to inform the House that after being at the natural resources committee for over a month, with more than 20 hours of scheduled and publicly available meeting time, the committee on which I am proud to serve has been ground to a standstill by Conservative members who are deliberately blocking the work of the committee. We have not even reached a vote yet on a routine scheduling motion to put the study of this bill in place.

Let me set the stage. On October 30, a member of the committee brought a motion for a concurrence study of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords act. This was a routine scheduling motion that would simply allow these pieces of legislation to be discussed and examined in a manner expected of elected officials.

Conservative members sought an amendment to that scheduling motion to add another area of study that was not a review of these bills and was designed to delay the bills that were before the committee for as long as possible. Not only that, they proceeded to stop votes on this motion via filibuster and then resorted to bringing subamendments to call witnesses from specific ridings. To date, our committee remains stuck because of Conservative obstruction. We are on the consideration of the subamendments, with no progress to getting to a decision on the scheduling motion for the concurrence study of these bills.

We are stuck in a scary pre-Halloween world. The Conservative Party continues to waste taxpayer resources with pointless interventions, unrelated amendments and nonsensical ramblings designed to block these bills from being discussed and from allowing workers to have a seat at the table.

For instance, the member of Parliament for Provencher wasted time discussing the challenges of drinking a triple-thick strawberry milkshake through a straw and about his love of muscle cars, including the Chevrolet Vega. I love the Vega. My grandmother had a Vega. That's a great conversation topic at a family table, but that is not on topic at all for something related to the bill, the sustainable jobs act, or the amendment they had proposed to that scheduling motion or the subamendment about calling witnesses from specific ridings. It was just a self-indulgent ramble to waste the committee's time.

The member of Parliament for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a tangent undermining the science of climate change and denying that extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods and wildfires are increasing in severity and frequency. I would expect better from a member of Parliament whose own community was blanketed in wildfire smoke this summer and faced severe drought.

The Conservative members were disrespectful, played childish games and did all that they could to ensure the voices of workers were silenced. If most Canadians had been able to watch this display of unpleasant and frankly unparliamentary behaviour, workers would have seen the disregard the members of the Conservative Party showed toward them. They would have been appalled.

Some Canadians were watching. A member of the natural resources committee explained that this horrible and shameless filibuster was being taught in university as an example of how parliamentary process can be undermined. Labour leaders also came to Ottawa to watch these proceedings, and they were not just shocked but outraged by what they saw.

After seeing the Conservatives resort to whatever tricks and conspiracy theories they could think of to block workers from coming to the table, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “What we saw...in the committee meeting last night is the worst kind of performative, deceptive politics.... The Conservative members of the committee...are counting on Canadians not [reading the bill]”.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, also in response to this horrible display, said, “By holding up this bill continuously, the Conservatives are not speaking for workers on this issue. They are not making sure workers have a choice or ability to have robust debate as they are holding up this bill. It is incredibly frustrating, it is disrespectful to workers who are worried about their futures and it is disrespectful to communities. We need it to stop.”

It gives me no pleasure to recount all this and what we have seen in terms of the time and taxpayer dollars, frankly, being wasted by the members of the Conservative Party in this nonsensical campaign of obstruction.

The scheduling motion, which we have been blocked from adopting for over a month, would have allowed for the efficient review of both bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, in a concurrent manner, allowing for orderly witness appearances and deliberation.

Unfortunately, here we are today, left with a Conservative Party that has ignored the pleas of workers, labour leaders, industry, environmental organizations, two premiers and all the other recognized parties in the House. They have asked the Conservatives to end the filibuster and allow these bills to at least be discussed. The motion we are debating today is the only option available to ensure that this important legislation moves forward in a reasonable and timely manner.

Before I return to the challenges faced in the natural resources committee, I will first remind the hon. members of what this legislation means for Canada and our future. Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is critical to Canadian workers, to our economy and to Canada's future.

I wonder what part of this bill is so egregious to Conservatives that they would not even be willing to allow us to begin the study at committee. That is where we are at. Is it the “Canadian” part of the Canadian sustainable jobs act? Bill C-50 supports Canadians in every province and territory by bringing their voices to the decision-making table.

The bill supports Canadians by ensuring that they can access the most up-to-date data, resources and staff, to help our growing clean industrial facilities. It supports Canadians, because it allows us to get ahead of the pack and ensure that skilled Canadian workers can lead as we build the future economy today.

Perhaps they are opposed to the fact that it is a Canadian “sustainable” jobs act. We certainly heard an earful at committee from the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires, which we saw in our country just this summer, as a narrative that leads people to believe in climate change, but, as he said, “The facts don't bear it out.” Based on his own statements, I do not believe that sustainability is his top priority.

Perhaps the Conservatives are opposed to the “jobs” part. We already know that they oppose and voted against the tens of thousands of jobs we are attracting to sites such as the Volkswagen gigafactory, Stellantis plants in Windsor and Brampton, Northvolt in Quebec, Michelin in Nova Scotia, Air Products and Heidelberg in Alberta, BHP in Saskatchewan, E-One Moli in B.C. and so many more.

We know that they are not just against job creation but also good-quality jobs, including union jobs. Right now, they refuse to share their stance on Bill C-58, which would ban replacement workers and ensure that unions and employers can negotiate better deals. This is a win for workers and the economy. They also refuse to condemn their Conservative provincial partners in Alberta, who are putting in place a $33-billion moratorium on renewable energy products and the thousands of jobs they create.

It seems that perhaps they oppose the Canadian sustainable jobs aspect of this legislation. I can tell members one thing that they are not opposing: the final word, which is “act”. Acting is precisely what they have been doing over the past 20 hours and, during committee work, for over a month. I would say that they have done so quite dramatically. It has been a month of acting.

They have been acting as though they care about workers, while they actively prevent the union that represents hundreds of thousands of Albertan workers from speaking on the public record. They have even been acting as though they care about due process and democracy, while they shout into microphones in committee and, for weeks on end, prevent members, such as the member for Timmins—James Bay, from speaking about the motion and the bill, when he clearly had the floor to speak.

In fact, we know that it is an act because they have almost exclusively used this filibuster to create fodder for social media clips and fundraising efforts. This is all premised on baseless assertions relating to a bill that they have clearly not begun to read or study.

It is clear that the Conservatives have no interest in serious issues of public policy and are not friends to working-class Canadians. They have deliberately worked to ensure that Parliament does not work, and they are purposely ignoring Canadian workers, communities, industries and civil society, which are calling for an end to their acting and to begin real legislative action.

That brings me, and all of us, back to today. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress acknowledged recently that there is a lot at stake here in terms of moving this bill forward. She said, “This bill can make a meaningful difference to workers. It can give a real voice to their future.... It can strengthen good jobs and vibrant communities by supporting the decarbonization of good union jobs that exist today in those communities, and it can ensure that...as the rest of the world is attracting investments in future industries and good jobs that Canadian workers are not left behind in those investments.”

This delay is preventing Parliament from conducting an in-depth study of these two important bills. Despite the Conservatives' filibustering in committee, the Liberals and others continued to work with environmental groups and experts, unions, businesses, indigenous peoples and others in order to move forward on shaping our net-zero future.

Meanwhile, the Conservative energy critic publicly committed to blocking, delaying and challenging workers to prevent them from sitting down at the bargaining table and entering the workplace. We cannot let this ideological and obstructionist attitude curb our economic potential. I would like to quote the executive director of the Climate Action Network, who said, “The Conservatives can filibuster this bill but they cannot filibuster the energy transition.”

Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is an essential bill that will help Canadian workers build a prosperous economy. It also builds on the work that our committee did last year when it studied the future of sustainable jobs. During a previous study of this bill in committee, the Conservatives filibustered in dozens of meetings to prevent the witnesses from speaking, because they are obviously afraid of workers being represented.

At the same time, we are taking action. That includes making historic investments in clean technologies in budget 2023 and taking collaborative action with other levels of government and international partners. This solid foundation has put our economy and Canadian workers in a position of strength that will continue to build if we pass Bill C-50.

I would like to share with the House the five key elements that make up this legislation.

First, it would use guiding principles, such as social dialogue, that let us learn from international best practices to get this right.

Second, it would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of workers, industry, experts, indigenous peoples, youth and others who would provide independent advice to the government on an annual basis and engage with Canadians.

Third, it would commit to publishing action plans every five years. The plans would build on the council's expertise and ensure that Canada is able to continue to chart a path forward that responds to our labour needs in decades to come.

Fourth, it would coordinate action across the federal government through a sustainable job secretariat.

Fifth, it would designate responsibilities to ministers for implementing this legislation as a standard practice.

The other side may fearmonger and claim that, with this bill, the sky will fall and pigs will fly. However, the fact is that these are responsible and targeted legislative measures to ensure that workers have a seat at the table and that we get them on job sites that we are building right across this country. The opportunities for workers are enormous, including the opportunities that exist today.

Since taking office, the government has invested in clean growth and building a strong economic future, and our work is being noticed around the world. Companies are choosing to invest in Canada and create jobs here, because of our very clean electrical grid and the work we are doing to support clean technologies. The Conservative delays are risking the once-in-a-generation opportunity for Canadians to take the lead in these jobs and in the innovations that will reduce carbon emissions right across this country.

By the end of this decade, RBC predicts that the global move toward a low-carbon economy will add as many as 400,000 new jobs to the Canadian workforce. To best seize this opportunity, we need legislation that helps us to get the right skills and training to workers today, which Bill C-50 will do. Workers, labour market experts and employers have been clear, and so has this Parliament when we sent Bill C-50 to committee to be studied. Because of the Conservative tactics at committee, we have not been able to do this.

When we talk about the job opportunities, I also want to make sure we remember that some of these jobs are going to be due to offshore wind energy, which Bill C-49 was designed to facilitate. The delays we have faced at the natural resources committee have prevented us from doing the concurrent studies of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, at the very moment when we are being told by Atlantic premiers and residents that they want to see this move forward. Let us not forget that the motion Conservatives have been delaying for over a month was one to concurrently review Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, allow witnesses to appear and allow the committee to make the most efficient use of parliamentary time. The witnesses would have appeared by now.

I want to make it very clear that we have an important choice to make today. On the one hand, we can choose, as Conservatives have, to waste our time waxing poetic about the days when it was easier to sip triple-thick milkshakes through a straw and drive around in muscle cars that were not even built in Canada. On the other, we can choose what Canadians and workers want. We can work to build an economy for the future that includes having workers at the table as we decide those next steps. We can build cars here in Canada, with skilled jobs, skilled workers and investments that are being made right here. We have that opportunity to be creating well-paying jobs that are, often, union jobs. It can be about developing the energies the world wants, such as offshore wind in the Atlantic provinces, in Canada. That is going to be the energy that powers our future and creates well-paying jobs.

To me, as I stand here, the Liberals have made this choice very clear: We are rolling up our sleeves to stand alongside Canadian workers and build that economy of the future. We are ready to build an economy that is responsive and has those opportunities put forward.

What the Conservatives have clearly chosen, from what we are seeing at committee, is to spend their time talking about themselves and not talking about Canadian workers and the needs of our country. That is why, today, I am asking the House to support the motion that has been put forward to allow the legislation to move forward and to do the work we need to do. It is important for the House to respect what it has voted upon in prioritizing the legislation to be sent to committee to be studied. It is also about respecting Canadian workers and respecting what Canadians expect to see us do in this place. I would ask that we continue to work together towards that.

Canadians want us to claim our share of the global clean energy market, and the hundreds of thousands of high-quality, sustainable jobs that will result.

Parliament has a duty to study and to advance these two vital pieces of legislation. We cannot allow ourselves to sit back and allow rage farming and social media clips to be happening at committee. We need to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. I stand here today asking that this be exactly what we work together to have done. That is why the motion we are discussing today would enable an expeditious review of the much shorter Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill. Then, it would allow for the committee to review Bill C-49 afterwards.

I would remind the House that we have been debating a scheduling motion, actually not even a scheduling motion but a subamendment to an amendment to a scheduling motion, for over a month. Since October 30, we have been debating that simple point. We have not been allowed to study the bill.

The Conservatives have points they want to register about the bill itself. The place to have done it would have been in the study of the bill. However, the Conservatives chose otherwise. They chose to filibuster a scheduling motion. That is not how we get work done here. It is not respectful to the process, to each other, or to Canadians and the workers who sent us here to get the job done. That is what we are asking today: Let us get the job done. Let us make sure that we do what Canadians sent us here to do. Let us get to studying the bill we have before us, Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill.

[Robin Guy]

Our west coast is Canada's largest gateway to the world, handling over 800 million dollars' worth of cargo, from agri-food and potash to critical minerals and household necessities, every single day. That accounts for a quarter of Canada's total trade.

This summer we saw over 35 days of uncertainty and disruptions to our west coast gateways, including Vancouver, Vancouver Island and Prince Rupert, which caused major delays for Canadian businesses in virtually every sector across the country.

I'll repeat that 25% of our total trade stopped. That meant that Canadian potash had to cut production and sales during the strike, causing those who rely on Canadians for fertilizer to look elsewhere to ensure that they could continue to grow crops. This meant that businesses looking for replacement parts to fix machinery were delayed, causing production to slow or stop. It meant that fruits and vegetables that we bring to Canada were left to rot in containers as opposed to making it onto shelves for consumers to enjoy. Plain and simple, it meant that goods were going to become more expensive, thus fuelling inflation.

I'll stress to the committee that the damage from a strike does not simply take place in the days when workers are picketing. Businesses need certainty. They need to know that, if they are importing or exporting goods, those goods will get to where they need to go when they need to be there. If not, then suppliers will go elsewhere, and there's no guarantee that they'll come back.

When looking at Canada's record, many of our trading partners are beginning to question if Canada can reliably get goods to market. We saw that shortly after the west coast port strike with the St. Lawrence Seaway and with the uncertainty that is looming at the port of Montreal.

I must state that the Canadian chamber respects the right to collective bargaining. We believe sincerely that the best deals are reached at the table, but when negotiations break down and meaningful bargaining is no longer possible, the Canadian business community expects the government to show leadership and act in the best interests of the country.

The Canadian chamber calls on the government to use the tools that it currently has in its tool box to prevent a strike and then solve it. We applaud the Minister of Labour for directing a senior mediator to recommend terms for settlement to reach a fair deal. Unfortunately, we did not see that action until nearly two weeks into the port strike, when significant damage to the Canadian economy and Canada's reputation had already taken place, and that dragged on for further weeks while the union failed to ratify the agreement.

The review initiated by the Minister of Labour under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code is a key opportunity to do this to equip the government with more tools and to be able to avoid labour disruption while protecting the public interest. We need to make sure that the government has the ability to force the two sides together in the form of a binding resolution. We can't have the government waiting on the sidelines for two weeks before action is taken.

Canada's supply chains are only as strong as their weakest link. Government can't solve all of our supply chain issues, but it must look to enable policies that will enable trade and strengthen our supply chains.

Less than a month ago, the Minister of Labour told Canadians that our credibility as a trading nation depends on the stable operations of our supply chains and that we must do everything we can to preserve that stability. We couldn't agree more. However, the introduction of Bill C-58, which aims to prohibit the use of replacement workers during strikes, suggests that the government wants to move away from preserving stability. It is, in fact, doubling down on Canada being seen as an unreliable trading partner. We need our leaders to engage in an honest dialogue that will provide our government with the tools it needs to address our labour challenges while allowing employers and employees to bargain in the way they should.

For the sake of our economy, I would urge all parties to vote against this legislation.

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

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

Another issue I'd like to bring up is Bill C-58, which is before the House now. It's the anti-scab legislation that would forbid the use of replacement workers in federally regulated industries like ports.

We hear commentary on both sides about whether this would be good or bad. Obviously the NDP believes that it's an essential thing and that it would actually shorten labour disputes, because if you allow replacement workers, things drag on and get very nasty.

I'm wondering if you can comment on any examples out there. I don't know if other jurisdictions have this kind of legislation, but what do you think the effect would be on a labour dispute in a port with that legislation in place?

Labour

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for decades, New Democrats and the Canadian Labour Congress have fought Liberals and Conservatives for anti-scab legislation. This session, the NDP used its power to force the Liberals to finally respect collective bargaining rights. While the Conservative leader pretends to have the backs of workers, when push comes to shove, he is nowhere to be found in standing up for them. CLC leaders are here on the Hill today demanding that the anti-scab legislation be implemented sooner than the 18-month Liberal timeline.

Will the Prime Minister commit to the necessary changes to truly support workers and implement the anti-scab legislation, Bill C-58, as quickly as possible?

Canada Labour Code

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code as well as the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations of 2012. In short, this legislation would prohibit the use of temporary replacement workers during work stoppages in federally regulated workplaces.

After eight long years of these Liberals, Canada is experiencing an unprecedented level of labour strife. Indeed, in the past few years, there have been nearly 300 major work stoppages, completely unprecedented. This is no accident. It is a direct result of the costly policies of these Liberals after eight years, costly policies that have resulted in 40-year high inflation, the fastest increase in interest rates in Canadian history and the cost of everything going up, in no small part as a result of the Liberals' punitive carbon tax.

After eight years of these Liberals, for everyday Canadian workers, work does not pay the way it used to. That is because everyday workers are seeing their purchasing power diminished in the face of 40-year high inflation. The cost of essentials, including for heat, fuel and groceries continues to go up. It will go up further if the Liberals get their way and quadruple their punitive carbon tax. After eight years of these Liberals, Canadian workers are struggling and they are hurting. In the face of these very real cost of living pressures that are a direct result of the costly policies of the Liberals, it is no wonder that we are seeing such a degree of labour unrest.

It is not only the costly policies of the Liberal government that are creating labour unrest, it is also eight years of Liberal mismanagement and incompetence, including with respect to industrial relations. That incompetence and mismanagement was on full display this past summer when there was a strike at the federally regulated B.C. ports that lasted several weeks. It was a strike that was foreseeable months ahead of time. It was a strike that could have been averted, had there been real federal leadership but, as usual, the incompetent Liberal government was asleep at the switch. Consequently, the strike happened, a strike that caused huge disruptions to critical supply chains, hurting both workers and businesses, and costing the Canadian economy half a trillion dollars. That is the cost of Liberal mismanagement and incompetence, further underscoring that after eight years, the Prime Minister just is not worth the cost.

Given the disastrous record of these Liberals when it comes to standing up for workers and helping them get by, we now have a desperate government that is plummeting in the polls, desperately trying to pretend that it actually cares about workers. It has trotted out Bill C-58. We know that the Liberals do not care about workers or at least they do not care about Canadian workers. They seem to care a lot about South Korean workers. Ironically, while the Liberals proclaim their opposition to temporary replacement workers, they voted against legislation produced by the NDP and the Bloc previously to do just that, but I digress.

Simultaneously, as the Liberals move this bill forward, they are bringing in 1,600 replacement workers from South Korea to displace Canadian workers and good-paying union jobs at the Stellantis plant in Windsor. Even worse, thanks to these Liberals, taxpayers are subsidizing the 1,600 South Korean replacement workers to the sum of a staggering $15 billion.

The Minister of Industry said that the $15 billion of taxpayers' money would create thousands of new jobs. What the minister conveniently neglected to say is that it would create thousands of new jobs for South Koreans and not Canadian auto workers in southwestern Ontario.

Now onto the substance of this bill. This bill would apply to key sectors of the Canadian economy, including interprovincial and international railways, air transportation, maritime shipping, banking and other sectors. If this legislation were passed, it would create the possibility that key sectors of the Canadian economy could be ground to a halt. That is something that has to be weighed upon.

What would the implications be, for example, of a weeks-long rail strike? What would the consequences be if an airline, such as Air Canada, were grounded for weeks? These are questions that need to be addressed. There are other possibilities that are realistic, which could happen.

We know the cost of the port strike in British Columbia. It cost our economy half a trillion dollars. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to establish that this legislation would meaningfully benefit federally regulated workers or otherwise strengthen the system of federal labour relations.

The Minister of Labour, in his speech at second reading, claimed that this bill would provide greater certainty and predictability in the collective bargaining process, thereby reducing the number and duration of strikes. However, the evidence based upon the experience of jurisdictions that have adopted legislation of this kind is, in fact, that it is the opposite. In that regard, I would cite data from Statistics Canada, which examined work stoppages in Canada between 2008 and 2016. Statistics Canada found that the provinces with the highest number of lost work days due to work stoppages were in the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, the only two provinces that have legislation of this kind on the books.

I would further note a study from the Department of Employment and Labour, in 2007, that found that legislation of this kind increases the length and number of strikes. There is a significant study from 1999 that looked at 4,000 labour contracts from 1967 to 1993. It found that legislation of this kind actually increases the length of strikes by as much as 50%.

The Canada Labour Code balances the rights of workers and the rights of employers. I have real concerns that this legislation would upend that balance in a way that is not good for employers and also not good for workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑58, which is being studied thanks to the NDP. It is thanks to the efforts of the member for Burnaby South, as well as our critic and deputy leader, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, that we are here debating another anti‑scab bill. This is the eighth time the NDP has introduced such a bill in Parliament, but we know that it will stick this time. For anyone from any party to claim the opposite would be absolutely false. The NDP has been championing this cause for years. Eight times we did not succeed. However, NDP members keep working until we do succeed. This bill is a win for all workers across the country.

I should also point out that we desperately need this NDP bill in the House of Commons. First and foremost, let us look at the gap between CEOs' annual pay and workers' annual pay across the country. Over the past 15 years or so, first under the Conservatives and then under the Liberals, the gap between what CEOs earn and what workers get has doubled. Seventeen years ago, before the Harper regime began, the ratio was 200 to 1, meaning CEOs earned $200 for every dollar a worker earned. Today, after 17 years of this corporate coalition, we see that the gap has doubled. CEOs now earn around 400 times what workers earn.

It is extremely important to have a fair and level playing field for bargaining. That is what this NDP bill does. It ensures that workers who are negotiating in good faith can now improve their situation while doing their job. For example, they can vote in favour of a strike knowing that their employer cannot use scabs to take away their power to get fairer wages, a health plan and a safer, more secure workplace. These are all things that workers are seeking.

Magali Picard, the president of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, said it like it is:

Finally! That is what we feel like saying. We must commend the...government for its courage in resisting the employer lobbies and recognizing all of the hard work that has been done by the NDP, not to mention the unions, including the affiliates of the FTQ, which have constantly exerted pressure over the years so that the governments in place would introduce a bill to protect workers. Too often, unscrupulous employers under federal jurisdiction have taken advantage of the lack of anti-scab legislation to continue operating during labour disputes by hiring scabs. This bill meets our expectations.

Let me repeat what Ms. Picard said: “recognizing all of the hard work that has been done by the NDP”. That is important. That is why the NDP pushed so hard and worked so tirelessly to get this bill introduced. Now, of course, we are going to see to it that the bill is improved, because there are still elements in it that need to be improved.

When we talk about Bill C-58 and the NDP's long battle, over decades, to bring anti-scab legislation, anti-replacement-worker legislation, to the floor of the House of Commons, we have to understand the why of this. I can give no better illustration than just last weekend, when I was back in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby. There are picket lines there that, of course, the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP has visited. The members for Vancouver Kingsway, Vancouver East and Port Moody—Coquitlam, and, in fact, all members of the Lower Mainland caucus of the NDP, have been on the picket lines for the Shaw workers who were locked out by Rogers.

Rogers, with the rubber stamp of the federal Liberal government, took over Shaw cable, a company that worked for a long time with unionized workers. It locked them out immediately because the workers wanted to continue to have their jobs; to continue, in good faith, to negotiate adequate salaries; and to make sure that work was not contracted out and, in that sense, hurting the entire community. The workers expected to see a negotiation in good faith. That is not what Rogers did. Rogers locked them out and immediately hired replacement workers. I have been on the lockout lines, as have my colleagues from the Lower Mainland NDP caucus. We have not seen Liberals there. We have not seen Conservatives there. It has been New Democrats standing up for the workers, the hundreds who have been locked out.

The reality is, in an example like that, in federal jurisdiction, that the use of replacement workers is a benefit to the corporate executives who have decided to take the step. It is not in the interests of the community, of the public, nor even of the company. The executives took the decision out of pure greed.

Eighteen months would be ridiculously long. The NDP is going to change that. However, the reality is that once Bill C-58 is implemented, companies like Rogers would have to act responsibly. They would have to sit down. They would have to negotiate in good faith. They would have to ensure that what they are doing is negotiating an agreement with their workers in good faith and above board.

The bill is something that would level the playing field for workers. We have seen a massive concentration under the Harper regime and under the current government, where corporate executives have basically had all of the power. They have been able to take massive amounts of money overseas, as the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer tells us, $30 billion of taxpayers' money every year. That is money that could be going to seniors, students and families. It is $30 billion every year, as a result of the Harper tax haven treaties, that is taken offshore. Many of the corporate executives are the same ones who want to negotiate in bad faith with their workers and to lock out their workers, as we have seen in the Rogers-Shaw case, where the Shaw workers were locked out and are now seeing replacement workers stealing their jobs.

The reality, and the important thing to note, is that levelling the playing field is in the interests of the entire community, because strikes and lockouts last a much shorter period of time. There are not the prolonged lockouts and strikes, because the use of replacement workers means that corporate executive do have to sit down and negotiate in good faith. They do have to negotiate in the interests of their business. They do need to negotiate in the interests of their community. It changes everything when the playing field is levelled. That is certainly what we have seen in British Columbia and in Quebec. The anti-scab legislation has actually led to fewer labour disputes, because management is finally compelled to actually negotiate in good faith with the workers in their jurisdiction.

I come from the shop floor. I worked in plastic factories. I worked in the Annacis Business Park. I worked in a unionized situation at the Shelburn oil refinery, which is now closed. My life was a working life, and I saw the difference between non-union and union work. The reality is that working people do better when unions are present and laws provide for a level playing field for negotiation. The middle class counts because of organized labour and people working together.

I am hoping the Liberals have finally been convinced to vote for the legislation. I salute that. I understand that the Bloc will be voting for it. That is important too.

Above all, if Conservative members really believe in the middle class, working families and working Canadians, they need to get off the fence and vote for this legislation. I know the member for Carleton is obsessed with the price on carbon. There is nothing about the price on carbon in this bill, so Conservatives can vote “yes” on Bill C-58.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in Parliament today in favour of Bill C-58, a historic piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that is in support of workers, and in support of their fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively.

Fundamentally, this legislation is about fairness. By banning the use of replacement workers, also known as “scabs”, we are supporting fairness, and the right of workers to exercise their fundamental rights.

Before I go on, I want to make sure I mention I am splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Many may wonder why this legislation is necessary. We know that, historically, there are employers who have done what they can to attack workers and to undermine their rights. We know that scabs are often brought in during lengthy strikes, and it is not about providing essential services or other excuses that employers might use. It is about breaking workers. It is about breaking unions. We are all worse off for it.

This legislation matters in my riding. I am proud to be from northern Manitoba. I am proud to be from Thompson, a working-class town, a mining town and a union town. I am proud to have been a union member before I got into politics. I am proud to represent communities like The Pas, Flin Flon, Churchill, Norway House and others where workers have a history of standing up and fighting back.

Manitoba has a long history of labour activism. We all know the general strike of 1919 where there was a violent repression against workers fighting for their rights. There have been many strikes and walkouts in the history of our province here in northern Manitoba. We know that workers have stood up with everything they had to fight for better wages, for safety in their workplaces, and for support for our communities and our region. They have fought for all of us.

Let us be clear about the fact that anti-scab legislation is a victory for working people everywhere. I am proud to be in the NDP, a political party that supports workers. We are part of a movement that was created, of course, in large part by workers and organized labour. We, in the NDP, are unequivocal in our support of workers and workers' rights, rather than the billionaire-class, corporate coalition the Liberals and Conservatives always fight for.

Workers, as represented by organized labour, have made this call for anti-scab legislation for years, and the NDP has been there to support them every step of the way. Eight times in 15 years the NDP has introduced anti-scab legislation. We know that the B.C. NDP government brought in anti-scab legislation years ago. I also acknowledge that Quebec has had anti-scab legislation for a long time. I hope the newly elected NDP government in Manitoba brings anti-scab legislation into force as well.

At the federal level, we must acknowledge that this is a historic moment. This is historic legislation. It feels like this time, the Liberals will finally pause their corporate, anti-worker coalition with the Conservatives for a brief enough time to pass this vital piece of legislation. It is legislation that, even through the negotiations with the Liberals, they had to be pulled kicking and screaming toward the finish line. Finally, we have it in sight.

What workers are used to from the Liberals and Conservatives is lip service and not a whole lot else. I, along with my colleagues, hope that we can strike down the 18-month implementation period that is far too long for Canadian workers.

We know that when not one billionaire tax cheat has been punished for parking their money in offshore tax havens, and when billionaires are given a free ride time and time again, we all see the power imbalance in this country for what it is. We see it when the Liberals let 123 corporations avoid paying $30 billion in taxes, all while patting themselves on the back as the defenders of workers that they pretend to be.

We see it in the anti-worker, back-to-work legislation that both Liberals and Conservatives have consistently brought in and supported when workers collectively fight for their rights, like with postal workers, dock workers, Air Canada workers, PSAC workers and UFCW workers. Neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the official opposition has seen a strike they are uncomfortable quashing. We now have the power to change that.

At this point, it is pretty clear that workers have seen a lot from the federal government that is anti-worker. They have seen billion-dollar contracts with Amazon, while workers rely on food banks. They have seen how hard it is to afford rent or buy a home when billionaires are making record profits.

It is also very important that we remind Canadians of the record of the Conservative Party and the leader of the official opposition who has reshaped himself into a so-called champion for workers, but when they look at his record, he is somebody who has made clear that he hates workers and the defence of workers' rights with the same zeal as the Prime Minister. In fact, when the leader of the official opposition was in government, he cut billions of dollars from health care that we all rely on, he cut EI benefits and he directly attacked workers. He attacked unions. He voted against raising the minimum wage and, of course, we know he supported back-to-work legislation. Simply told, he may talk a big game, but we have seen this before and workers will not buy it.

Because both the Liberals and the Conservatives will try to fool people and they do it any time they need a political boost, out comes the “aw shucks” defence of working people. If we are lucky, some may show up to a picket line, but if either the Liberals or the Conservatives cared for workers, they would not push for trade deals that actively harm them. and it would not have taken the eighth try in 15 years to actually pass anti-scab legislation. It would have happened by now.

I am proud of the work that our federal NDP has done to push the Liberals to bring this piece of legislation forward. We know that this is legislation that would not just lift workers up but would lift Canadians up as well. It is sorely needed to restore the power imbalance between workers and the billionaire class, where workers have been forced to fight for scraps while the ultrarich in this country make record profits. There is hope. I think of workers at a Starbucks in Chicoutimi who just signed their first union card, or workers in Montreal at Amazon working to unionize their workplace. It is time we fixed this power imbalance and it starts with enshrining worker protections, like anti-scab legislation, so that every worker has a voice.

The reality is that billionaires and their enablers in the Liberal Party and Conservative Party are all too happy to quash the power of workers. However, with this legislation, fought for by the NDP, we have made it a bit harder. Any day we make it easier for workers and harder to be a billionaire is a good day for Canadians.

I am going to make a prediction that the Conservatives are going to talk a good talk, as we are hearing in the House with respect to how tough people have it, but I predict that they are not going to support anti-scab legislation which is fundamentally tied to the ability of workers to fight for fairness. We know that from the track record of their leader and we know that from the track record of many MPs who were part of the previous Harper government, which was a dark time for working people in this country.

I can pretty well guarantee that despite some of the verbal pronouncements of support for workers, we certainly will not hear them singing Solidarity Forever or see them standing up to vote for this legislation that would ban the use of replacement workers. The bottom line is that if they really support workers, if they really support their right to organize and their right to bargain collectively, and if they support the labour movement and believe that it is fundamentally tied to bettering the lives of workers and all Canadians, they will vote for this legislation. I hope all parties will do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of us have heard from constituents who are quite concerned about the cost of living increase and how hard it is for folks. She mentioned in her speech the necessity to ensure that workers have an ability to negotiate on an equal footing with their employers to have better wages. One of my concerns is the time that it takes to pass this legislation and that within the legislation the Liberals have put in an 18-month delay before implementation.

I want to ask the member why she thinks this is justified, considering people are struggling now and workers need the supports in Bill C-58 to ensure they have equal rights to that of their employers.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House of Commons for their patience today. When technology works, it is great, and when it does not, we end up with problems like this.

It is very important that I have the opportunity to finish my thoughts on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. This legislation is so important for Canadian workers.

When contract negotiations are dragging on and, as we have all seen, have reached a stalemate, workers are ultimately faced with two decisions: they take the offer on the table, whether it is acceptable or not, or they go on strike. I have been on picket lines many times across my own riding, with Vale workers, Department of National Defence workers and steelworkers in Labrador West, Labrador City and Wabush. Many have had to walk the picket lines over and over, while others were called in to do their jobs. It not only affects the financial abilities within their families but affects them psychologically. It has a tremendous impact on all aspects of their lives.

This is something unions have been asking for for a long time. When people are out there on the picket lines supporting these workers, they feel a deep sense of frustration as they watch other people take their jobs. They are only there because they were not able to solidify the rights and rewards they felt entitled to.

Collective bargaining is hard work. We all know that. We all know that it takes time and very innovative ideas. It can be very tense. It can be messy. The minister said that when he was introducing this bill.

We know that workers want to work. They want to work for fair pay and fair benefits. They do not want to walk picket lines. That is always the last resort. We can never forget that.

We also know that labour instability means instability right across our supply chains. It has a ripple effect on the economy. It affects all of us in Canada. Anytime we can avoid this and allow for the collective bargaining process to work so workers can get good, solid agreements between unions and employers, it really benefits all Canadians. Anytime we can have these disputes settled and not prolonged, it is in the best interests of workers, their families and the overall economy in Canada.

I know a number of Conservatives asked whether members had ever been on a picket line. I have been on many, because I have supported unionized workers all my life. I really believe they have worked hard to earn the rights and benefits they have and that they should be able to exercise them without the cost of losing their jobs or having others take their jobs.

One of the largest protester rallies I was ever involved in was when a Conservative government withdrew search and rescue services from Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only were employees laid off but the doors were closed in a province that has thousands of kilometres of seaway and is so dependent on search and rescue and the marine search and rescue centre. The Conservative government under Stephen Harper cancelled that particular program, and the doors at the search and rescue centres were closed and locked, putting workers out in the streets.

I know what it is like. I know how these workers are impacted. I have seen it first-hand. This legislation is there to protect workers, protect their jobs and allow for them to have the full collective bargaining rights they have worked hard to secure in settlements over decades in Canada.

I will be supporting this legislation, and I hope all my colleagues in the House of Commons will support it as well.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we can see the NDP spinning its partisan talking points.

I am here thoughtfully discussing, and asking questions and seeking answers on Bill C-58. I asked questions throughout my remarks today about how this piece of legislation is going to affect everyday Canadians.

It is unfortunate to see the NDP marrying and partnering with the Liberals and being invited to sit next to them.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that improving labour relations should be the ultimate goal of any government. It is better for workers, employers, the economy and all Canadians. However, the current labour climate suggests that we are moving in another direction. Across the country, we are seeing more labour strife than we have at any other time in recent history.

The strife is undoubtedly being fuelled by the spiralling cost of living crisis in this country, which is a direct result of the NDP-Liberal government's inflationary deficits and taxes. The costly coalition has made life more difficult for hard-working Canadians, and paycheques are not going nearly as far as they once were.

We know the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything. Food prices have gone up year after year, housing costs have doubled and mortgages have gone up by 150% since the Liberals took office. There are reports indicating that over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke, which is simply outrageous. Working Canadians across this country are struggling to put food on their tables and to keep a roof over their heads. That is unacceptable, but it is the devastating reality after eight years of the Liberal government, which continues to be propped up by its NDP friends. They have failed Canadian workers and broken the unspoken promise that if one gets a job and works hard, one will be able to pay one's bills and build a better life.

That is the climate in which the Liberals have tabled this bill. As we consider Bill C-58, it is critical that we do so with a view to finding balance. Governments should never encourage labour disruption or give either side in a dispute an uneven advantage, because there are very serious implications for all Canadians when labour is disrupted. This is particularly true when we consider the industries and the sectors that are federally regulated.

Whether it is our rail system, our ports, our telecommunication networks or air travel, labour disruptions in these critical industries have a serious cost for businesses. Beyond that, they can also have a potentially devastating impact on everyday Canadians. That downstream impact should not be cast aside in this debate, and it cannot be ignored. It raises questions about what happens when medicine cannot get to the end destination on store shelves and, ultimately, is not there when Canadians need it.

What happens if telecommunication services are down? How does a family member check in on loved ones? What impact would this have on payment processing? Would there be Canadians unable to access basic necessities? If fresh food in transportation spoils, what is the cost to consumers? These questions raise just a few examples of what impact a strike could have on Canadians. Ultimately, a strike that impacts our supply chains, such as those in our ports or railways, will always have a ripple effect beyond the employer and worker.

It will also impact small businesses that depend on the efficient flow of our supply chains. The longer a strike lasts, the greater the harm it will cause. For small businesses, it is a situation that is generally well beyond their control. This is certainly true for farmers, who need to get their commodities to market. In my province of Saskatchewan, which is a landlocked province, a disruption in any part of the supply chain network is seriously detrimental.

It is critical that, in considering this legislation, we understand the potential impact on farmers and their operations. Farmers certainly cannot afford to take any more hits. They are already some of the hardest hit by the NDP-Liberal coalition's failed policies. Farmers I have spoken to certainly feel that it is intentional and that the government has no regard for their industry or their contributions to our country. Failed policies such as the Liberal carbon tax are putting the viability of farm businesses in jeopardy. There is also, of course, the Senate; so-called independent senators are now doing the government's bidding by dragging their feet on Bill C-234. Ensuring the viability of farm operations is critical to the industry, as well as to an affordable and dependable food supply.

I recently had a farmer in my office who shared with me that a single day of rail disruption delayed his shipment by a matter of weeks, which, of course, directly impacted the cash flow of his operations. That is because a single day of disruption never equates to a single day of backlog. This brings to mind this past summer's port strike in Vancouver, which created a massive bottleneck in our supply chain infrastructure. The job action in Vancouver lasted weeks, and now all these months later, the port is still working to clear the backlog.

Let me be clear that Canadian workers, without question, have the right to collective bargaining and striking. Striking should be the last resort, and it should not be incentivized. The best outcome for all parties is coming to an agreement at the bargaining table. That is why it is critical that government foster a level playing field for unions and businesses so that ultimately government is helping only to foster better labour relations. Government should not intervene to tip the scales.

Other jurisdictions that have implemented similar bans have seen an increase in job actions, which should be cause for warning. It is not clear what lessons from those jurisdictions are being applied in this legislation, and it is not clear that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance between labour and employers. In fact, the bill contains a lot of ambiguity that requires clarification. This is, of course, a pattern with the Liberal government, which has a tendency to introduce what it has coined as “framework legislation”.

There is another matter of great curiosity. The bill would impose a ban on replacement workers for federally regulated industries, but it would not apply to the public service. This policy decision certainly raises questions. If the Liberals have determined through their consultations and analysis that what they are proposing is positive for labour relations, then it would make sense to apply it to themselves, but they deliberately chose to exclude the federal government and the public service from the scope of this legislation. I think industry deserves clarity from the labour minister on this particular policy decision.

In another example of “do as I say and not as I do”, the Liberal government seems to villainize replacement workers through this legislation while at the same time funding foreign replacement workers. Last week, we learned that the Stellantis battery plant is reportedly hiring 1,600 foreign workers despite receiving $15 billion in subsidies from the NDP-Liberal coalition. This is not in the interests of our Canadian workers, and it certainly is not fair to them or Canadian taxpayers. Canadian taxpayer subsidies should be going to support Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers.

We do not even fully understand the extent of the government's budgeted contract negotiations, because not only does the story keep changing on that side of the House, from claiming disinformation to claiming one worker and then a handful, but the Liberals are deliberately choosing to keep the contracts hidden. If it is such great news for Canadian workers, why the secrecy? What are they trying to hide?

Well, we know now that the Northvolt plant will be utilizing taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers, which also calls into question whether Volkswagen will. Canadian taxpayers and tradespeople deserve answers. The Prime Minister must confirm what provisions were negotiated to secure good, long-term jobs for Canadians, because at the end of the day, that is what Canadians workers want. They want to work. They want Canadian businesses and industries to succeed so they have job security. They want businesses to continue to invest and create jobs in Canada that will allow them to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table. They want a guarantee that they can build a life for themselves.

As I said at the outset, improving labour relations should be the government's goal. Having healthy and good labour relations is what is best for workers, employers, the economy and ultimately all Canadians.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my colleague a question. I listened very attentively as she spoke on Bill C-58. We all know that good deals happen at the bargaining table. That is where workers have the opportunity to get the powerful leverage they need to ensure they get fair wages, fair benefits and job security. These are all the things they and their families need and depend upon. The fact that companies can bring in replacement workers while they are on strike has always been a disadvantage for workers.

Is my hon. colleague prepared to support Bill C-58 and support workers in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

It is always a privilege to stand in the House to speak on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today, I rise to speak to the government's legislation, Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. The bill has two main elements. First, it would affect the use of replacement workers only in those workplaces that fall under federal regulation. To be clear, this is not for federal public sector workers. Second, the bill would amend the maintenance of activities process. Again, to be clear, this is not for federal public sector workers. This is only for companies that fall within federal regulation.

If this legislation is so fantastic for workers, as the labour minister and other Liberal members say, it is extremely curious that the Liberals did not implement it into the contracts it negotiated just recently in the federal public sector. The Liberals plan to enforce legislation for the private sector that they themselves will not be held to. The golden rule of doing unto others as one would have them do unto oneself does not exist for the NDP-Liberal government.

One of the most interesting parts of this legislation is that, if it were to pass through the House of Commons and the Senate, and receive royal assent, it would not come into effect until after the next election. Here we have another example of the Liberal government promising sunny ways now and pushing off the effects its policies would have until after an election.

One of the great privileges of serving as the shadow minister for employment and workforce development is the number of meetings and conversations I have with workers, including unionized workers. I have talked with many workers from many different industries across many provinces in the country, in Yukon, and in my community.

Most workers whom I have talked to have top priorities in their concerns with tax increases, inflation and interest rates eating away at their paycheques. These are the top issues they bring up with me. I have had workers talk to me about concerns with stable EI programs, access to training, temporary foreign workers, better access to professional testing, and the ability for people working in the trades to expense items such as tools.

I was recently speaking to a young man who is a construction worker who told me that he has a place to sleep, but it is not a home. Even though he has a good job, he does not feel like he will ever own a home. We know it now takes 25 years to save for a home in Canada. There are so many good jobs that either have left the country or have evaporated, but the NDP-Liberal government does not want to talk about that.

Let us look at the forestry sector. Thousands of good-paying jobs have been lost in my home province of British Columbia alone. These were good-paying jobs supporting families. It is not like there was less of a need for softwood lumber or pulp, but due to the Liberal government's not negotiating a softwood lumber agreement with the U.S., a lack of business confidence and an unfriendly business regime created by the government, the jobs have gone south of the border. The Prime Minister promised a new softwood lumber agreement within 100 days of his first election in 2015. We are now thousands of days past this, three U.S. presidents later and no closer to that agreement.

Mills have shut and thousands of jobs have been lost in B.C. alone. This is another broken promise. Two hundred workers whose livelihoods supported their families in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country lost their jobs when the mill closed. The Liberals were not successful in negotiating a softwood lumber section into CUSMA either. They left it up to negotiating a separate agreement, and this has not happened.

In the energy sector, over $100 billion in investments evaporated with project cancellations under the NDP-Liberal government, and tens of thousands of jobs have either been lost, or there were lost opportunities. Many cited Canada's red-tape regulatory regime as a major barrier. There used to be direct flights to Fort Mac from Kelowna International Airport, with families living in Kelowna or Lake Country. When there were massive layoffs in the energy sector early in the Liberal government's time, the flights stopped.

Around this time, I recall speaking to a family where the husband had a good job working for an oil and gas company, and his company laid off a lot of its workforce. The only work he could find at the time was cutting lawns, and he and his wife had to make the tough family decision for the wife to go back to work, even though, with two young children, she did not want to. Even with them both working, they were making less than his one previous job in the energy sector. She was also no longer able to volunteer at the kids' school, and it created a lot of coordinating challenges with activities in the family. These are the tough decisions parents make every day. If the government were truly concerned about workers, as it says it is, it should focus on making sure there is investment in Canada and removing red tape and bureaucracy. It should stop stifling business and focus on creating well-paying jobs.

The anti-energy Prime Minister and radical activist environment minister have shrunk Canada’s energy workforce while promising a “just transition” that cannot guarantee workers the same pay or benefits. The government’s own document on the just transition refers to affecting 2.7 million workers' jobs within the energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture sectors. Let us not forget the anti-energy industry bill, Bill C-69, parts of which have now been deemed unconstitutional.

The Prime Minister said there is no business case for LNG, yet the U.S. has become a major exporter in the world in just a few years. This is another lost opportunity for Canadian workers. If the NDP-Liberal government is so concerned about replacement workers, why did it seemingly negotiate an agreement in Windsor, Ontario, which will include foreign replacement workers? The Liberals originally called this disinformation, but we now know and have confirmation from the very company hiring the workers that at least 900 taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers from South Korea would be brought in to work on that plant, which would be subsidized by 15 billion taxpayer dollars.

The executive director of Canada’s Building Trades Unions has called the decision to allow foreign replacement workers to replace Canadian jobs at the EV battery manufacturing facility in Windsor “a slap in the face” and an “insult to Canadian taxpayers.” We now know that the Northvolt project in Quebec will bring in taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers as well.

The government needs to make public copies of all contracts, memorandums of understanding or any other agreement between any minister, department, agency or Crown corporation of the Government of Canada, as well as all companies it has announced tax breaks and subsidies to in relation to battery production. When the Liberals put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, the jobs those subsidies pay for should go to Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers. Common-sense Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to release the documents for all these taxpayer-funded battery plants, so Canadians can see if the Liberal government did anything to secure guarantees for Canadian workers.

Let us talk about another recent broken promise of the Liberal government, with the announcement that it will now be raising EI premiums on every paycheque of workers in Canada in 2024. Just seven months ago, in budget 2023, it said that premiums would not be increased. The government’s inflationary deficits have crushed the purchasing power of workers' paycheques. Inflation increases the costs of basic necessities, and food inflation has been even higher. Despite the finance minister’s victory statement in September, inflation is still high; the Prime Minister's promise of bringing down food costs by Thanksgiving has come and gone. We know there is a record number of two million Canadians using a food bank each month. Rents have doubled, and taxes such as the carbon tax keep increasing. Families of all generations are being squeezed; they are on the edge of not being able to fulfill their financial commitments and pay their bills.

After eight years, inflation and interest rates at generational highs are impacting workers and their families everywhere they turn. Only a Conservative government will focus on making life more affordable and removing red tape and bureaucracy so Canadians can bring home powerful paycheques once again.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak in this House.

The purpose of Bill C‑58 is to support free and fair collective bargaining. If passed, it will help restore and maintain the balance of power between unions and employers during strikes or lockouts. According to the unions, employers are in a position of strength in labour disputes. We therefore need to ensure that each side can have equal strength when they go to the bargaining table.

Workers have rights. I think that everyone agrees on that. They have the right to organize, to bargain collectively and to go on strike. Striking is the tool they use to put pressure on the employer, but when they go on strike, they have to make sacrifices. They sacrifice their pay, their benefits, their day-to-day security.

I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Labrador, who is a long-time friend and colleague, with whom I sit on the natural resources committee.

With regard to employers, the sacrifices they make during a lockout are not always comparable to those of striking workers. Before introducing Bill C‑58, we did our job. Among other things, we held consultations with all stakeholders, including employers and unions. The unions told us about the shift in the balance of power during a strike or lockout. Restoring balance is a key element for them.

According to what the unions we met with told us, employers always have the upper hand in the negotiations because they have a lot more financial power than the workers. They explained to us that when employers use replacement workers, it creates an even greater imbalance. It weakens the workers' main pressure tactic, which is to deprive the company of its workforce.

Some have even argued that employers could use the replacement workers to avoid making compromises. For unions, this shift in the balance of power makes the bargaining process more difficult and makes strikes and lockouts last even longer

Workers who are not being paid do not feel as though they are on a level playing field with their employer, who has the means to pay workers to keep the business running. Unions feel as though both sides are not equally motivated to negotiate and come to an agreement. Employees do not think it is fair or equitable when an employer replaces a worker who is on strike. That can also impact what is happening at the bargaining table and have a very negative impact on labour relations. What is more, it increases the risk of violence on the picket lines. We have often seen that in the past. Workers get frustrated and tensions rise. It puts everyone's safety at risk, including that of replacement workers.

What the unions are telling us is the truth. These things have happened. Take, for example, the lockout of unionized employees at the Co-op Refinery in Regina in 2019. The company spent millions of dollars building a camp that it filled with scabs from outside the province. It had so much financial power that it was able to bring replacement workers in by helicopter so that they could get across the picket lines.

The company hoped that the unionized workers who were locked out would give up their pensions. The conflict lasted 200 days and was marked by blockades, arrests and even a bomb threat. Is there a better example to illustrate how imbalanced the power relationship between unions and employers can sometimes be and how much damage that can cause?

The point is clear: Resorting to replacement workers diverts attention away from the bargaining table. It prolongs disputes, and it can poison workplaces for years, if not decades.

We are banning the use of replacement workers because we believe in balanced collective bargaining, free and fair collective bargaining. How would Bill C-58 restore that balance?

This bill would encourage unions and employers to resolve their differences as they should—together, on an equal footing at the bargaining table. In other words, it brings the focus back to the bargaining table. That is where this has to happen, because that is where the best deals are made. We are going to do this by ensuring that employers can no longer get others to do the work of striking or locked out workers. I am talking about employees and managers hired after notice to bargain has been served. Contractors, regardless of when they were hired, would also be prohibited from doing the work of striking or locked out employees.

Now, as in all things, there are exceptions. Employers could use replacement workers to prevent threats to life, health or safety; to prevent destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or to prevent serious environmental damage affecting the property or premises. Any violation of the rules would be considered an unfair labour practice under the Canada Labour Code.

I will spare the House the details of the complaint process, but it should be noted that it would be handled by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB.

Bill C‑58 also provides for improvements to the process for the maintenance of activities. To prevent serious danger to the public, employers and unions should agree at the beginning of the bargaining process on what activities are to be maintained during a strike or lockout. The parties will have to come to an agreement within 15 days of the start of the negotiations, before they can issue 72-hour notices of their intention to strike or impose a lockout. If there is no agreement, it will be up to the CIRB to make a decision within 90 days. If no agreement or decision can be reached, there will be no strike or lockout.

I talked about what the unions told us during our consultations. As I mentioned, however, we consulted all the parties involved. We reached this point today because we worked in a spirit of tripartite collaboration. Together, the government, the unions and employers all sat down at the same table. We had open, honest and direct discussions. We worked freely and fairly, which is exactly what we want for the future of labour relations in Canada.

Bill C‑58 will unquestionably improve labour relations, protect the right of workers to strike, limit collective bargaining interruptions and ensure greater stability for Canadians during disputes in federally regulated industries.

Bill C-58 will lead to free and fair collective bargaining at all times.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill.

As my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville said, we feel like saying “finally”. The Bloc Québécois has been working for an extremely long time to have such a bill introduced and studied.

As my colleague mentioned, the first time a Bloc Québécois member introduced an anti-scab bill was in 1990. I was not even born in 1990. That was a long time ago. It was our dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel who introduced a similar bill. After that, we did the same thing 11 more times. The Bloc Québécois introduced similar bills 11 times. In other words, if the Bloc Québécois had been in power, we certainly would have passed such a bill by now. However, the Bloc Québécois has no aspirations to be in power.

That being said, I am glad to finally see, in 2023, that the other parties in the House—the NDP and the Liberal Party, at least—have made this a priority. I am eager to start working on this bill. I also want to highlight the work done by my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who just spoke. She has been the Bloc Québécois critic for labour for the past four years, and she does an amazing job. She is there for workers and unions. She is a former union leader herself. I think we can all thank her. I will do it on behalf of my colleagues, because she definitely played a part in the tabling of this bill. I think that many workers in Quebec will thank her for her work once this bill is passed.

She also said that, in Quebec, we may have been pioneers. We passed this type of legislation in 1977, and that created two classes of workers in Quebec with respect to scabs, federally regulated workers and all the others. This bill will finally eliminate these two classes of workers, at least that is our hope. As I heard in previous discussions, this bill even takes some steps forward, so we are extremely pleased about that. This bill is being applauded by several unions in Quebec, including Unifor and the United Steelworkers. In fact, I would say that this bill is being applauded by most unions. Everyone is very happy about it.

In that regard, my thoughts are with the Front commun workers in Québec who are on strike for better working conditions. Obviously, that is not exactly the same situation, but I am still thinking of them. I think that these exercises are extremely important. Even though the workers in that case are employed by the Government of Quebec, we can still stand in solidarity with them.

I have heard about this type of bill because of all the bills the Bloc Québécois has introduced over the years. I have also been approached by people who told me how important anti-scab legislation is, including a friend in telecommunications. He wrote to me several times in the past few months to find out if this was in the pipeline. He heard that the federal government wanted to introduce this kind of bill. He wanted to know whether it had been introduced or when it would be. I was always very disappointed that I had no news to give him and that I could not tell him it was coming or that we had started debating it. We had no news, and it took a very long time for the government to introduce the bill. My thoughts are with him and all his colleagues in the telecommunications sector, who will be significantly affected by this bill.

The bill proposes a ban on the use of replacement workers, including subcontracted workers, unless one of the following three situations arises. The first is a “threat to the life, health or safety of any person”. These terms may need to be better defined when the bill is being studied. That is why the Bloc Québécois hopes that the bill will be referred to committee so that we can examine these questions in greater depth and have a little more clarity. The bill also refers to a “threat of destruction of, or serious damage to, the employer's property or premises”. There is also mention of a “threat of serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises”.

The bill also proposes a complete ban on crossing the picket line, including by employees in the same work unit. It also proposes issuing fines of up to $100,000 per day when the employer fails to comply with the law.

Bill C‑58 would also require employers and unions to sign an agreement at the start of negotiations to specify which operations must be continued in the event of a strike or lockout, and they would have 15 days to do it. If they do not come to an agreement, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would decide within 90 days which operations would be continued. The minister would still have the power to refer the issue to the board to protect the health and safety of the Canadian population.

As I mentioned earlier, some of the points will need to be looked at in committee. There is the issue of the 90-day period for the Canada Industrial Relations Board that we, at the Bloc Québécois, have looked into. It seems needlessly long. A 60-day period might be more appropriate. We will have to see with the experts that will appear before the committee. There is also the definition of the exception for threats to the life, health or safety of any person. Exceptions like this one cannot be allowed to become catch-all measures that can be pulled out from a hat to bring everything to a halt. That will have to be looked at in committee. There is also the 18-month timeframe before the bill comes into force. My colleague alluded to that. It is obviously too long. Anyone who has ever gone on strike or been locked out knows how important this bill is. I have a friend who asked me every month if this bill was coming, because it is definitely important for these workers. Is it really necessary to wait 18 months after royal assent? That begs the question. Our leader spoke publicly on that subject.

We need to pass this bill as soon as possible. Obviously, it has to go through the legislative process step by step. There are a few issues we will want to raise in parliamentary committee, but all parties need to agree so we can move forward quickly, before Christmas if possible. Many workers would really appreciate this. According to the government's figures, roughly 1.03 million employees are covered by the Canada Labour Code. This affects a lot of people. We are talking about federally regulated industries and businesses, such as those in the air, rail, road, marine, interprovincial and international transportation sectors, as well as banks, the communications sector and postal services.

Apparently, there was an attempt to amend this part of the Canada Labour Code in 1999. However, the change was hijacked by employers who simply had to claim that they were negotiating in good faith. I think that what we have before us today is a true step forward compared to that feeble attempt in 1999, which clearly did not carry much weight.

I am running out of time, but I just want to quickly talk about the positive effects of anti-scab legislation. These measures are essential for civilized bargaining during a dispute. They promote industrial peace. They are the cornerstone for establishing a level playing field between the employer and labour. They also put an end to the situation where there are two classes of workers in Quebec, those who are regulated by Quebec or in the private sector and those who are federally regulated. We are sure that all of this will go quickly, but we know that the parliamentary process can be long sometimes. We just hope everything will go well.

In closing, I want to note something said by Nina Laflamme, union representative at the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who represents the longshore workers at the Port de Québec. She said that when this bill is adopted, we will be able to bargain on an equal footing.

I think that is a rather strong statement that makes sense because without this legislation and these anti-scab measures, unions and workers cannot effectively bargain on an equal footing. This has been a real problem for many years at the federal level. We applaud the introduction of this bill and we will obviously vote in favour of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I feel like saying, “at long last”. It was about time we got Bill C-58, a federal anti-scab bill. We have been calling for one for ages. The Bloc Québécois will definitely be supporting the bill in principle.

It might bear repeating that the Bloc Québécois has tabled several bills in the House aimed at ending the use of scabs during labour disputes. The first one was tabled by our colleague, the dean of the House, before the Bloc Québécois even existed. There have been 11 bills total. Although Canada is 46 years behind Quebec, because Quebec has had an anti-scab law on the books since 1977, this bill is a great accomplishment, but there was a lot of catching up to do to address the power imbalance in the employer-union relationship.

We were delighted when the bill was introduced. We welcomed it. We decided that it if was good for the workers of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois would support it. We think it was welcomed in all quarters, by the major unions of both Quebec and Canada. They have been calling for such a bill for years, even during consultations with the government in 2021 and 2022. The government announced that it would introduce a bill by late December 2023. It has done it, but we said at the time that that date was too far away and much too late. Some will say better late than never, but in this case, every passing day is a grave injustice for workers. The fact that the Canada Labour Code still allows the use of replacement workers in the event of a dispute creates a serious power imbalance.

Why is this so important? At the very least, it is a question of rights and freedoms. I just want to remind my colleagues that in the 2015 Saskatchewan ruling, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, recognized that the right to strike is not merely derivative of the right to bargain and to organize, it is indispensable in our society. That makes this right as important as the right to bargain. Using replacement workers and allowing them to be used in the event of a strike or a lockout is tantamount to fundamentally denying the right to strike. This problem absolutely had to be fixed.

This bill will also restore the balance of power. Now we will hear employers and big industry rise up against the bill, as we have heard them do before. They will argue that the bill will create an imbalance, that it will be dangerous for supply chains and the economy. The opposite is true. Back in 1977, the strikes in Quebec were tough. There was violence on the picket lines. That is one of the reasons Quebec passed a law to restore balance, as well as to restore a certain degree of industrial peace in labour disputes.

The only leverage available to a union or workers in the event of a dispute with the employer is their final resort: a strike. Employers have a similar right, the right to lockout. If employers are allowed to use replacement workers on top of imposing a lockout, they will be living the high life.

What does an employer stand to gain by settling the dispute as long as other workers cross the picket lines and are able to do the work without anyone getting their nose bent out of shape? What is happening right now in Quebec?

The conflict at the Port of Québec has been going on for almost two years. For more than 18 months, unionized workers with the Canadian Union of Public Employees have been locked out. What is more, the port is using replacement workers—scabs—who are often paid more than the employees, so the dispute continues. No one is getting worried. No one is connecting the dots. In terms of the economy, it is the workers who provide services at our ports, on our waterways and as part of our major infrastructure. They are part of those supply chains people talk about.

When workers do not have good working conditions, which is what they are demanding by going on strike, and when the dispute drags on, workplaces get weaker. Occupational health and safety can also be compromised, because replacement workers do not always have all the skills and attributes it takes to do the job. We have to pay attention to that.

We often see people act like the sky is falling when port workers go on strike. Just look at what happened at the Port of Vancouver. With the strike not even 24 hours old, people were already panicking and demanding special legislation. In many situations, disputes involving workers under federal jurisdiction were ended by either passing special legislation or allowing scab labour. That makes no sense anymore. This situation must be addressed.

We are pleased to see a bill on this matter. What worries us now, and with good reason, is whether the bill will succeed this time. How fast will the government move this bill forward to make sure it is not simply an intention that ends up dying on the Order Paper because it did not have enough time to make it through the process?

We are saying this for a reason. The bill already states that the legislation will not come into force until 18 months after royal assent. That is a year and a half. How can we count on that? There is no justification for that. I think things are clear. The provisions to be amended in the Canada Labour Code are quite clear.

There is no need to wait 18 months. The time frame must be shortened so that the bill comes into force as soon as it receives royal assent, as most other acts do. We can make it happen. We need to be able to respond to workers and give them what they need. It cannot just be wishful thinking.

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me I am out of time. Sign language is very difficult for me to understand.

I will conclude by saying that we absolutely must speed up the process. We need to ensure that this bill does not give full legitimacy to the right to strike and lockout by prohibiting replacement workers while at the same time limiting that same right to strike.

This is essential. The bill requires two major corrections.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many things the member said that I agreed with this afternoon. When we speak of Bill C-58, we often talk about labour in the form of unions. One of the things I want to emphasize and ask her thoughts on relates to unions and negotiations and how non-union workers have benefited because of union workers. We have seen this through generations. There are many social causes at the forefront today, even going all the way back, and social programs that came out of pressures and advocacy of unions.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on this being great legislation and that we should be getting it passed. We can look at the possibility of amendments at the committee stage, which would be wonderful. Could she just add her thoughts to the many contributions unions have made to our communities over many decades?

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

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. With this piece of legislation, our government is taking meaningful action to improve labour relations in Canada and ensure that Canadian workers can benefit from good, middle-class jobs.

As we know, I come to this chamber from the riding of Halifax. Our city is home to many private and public sector unions and their workers, who continue to contribute to our local economy, to enrich our community and to build the Halifax of tomorrow.

One may be a health care worker or a schoolteacher with NSGEU, a child care worker with CUPE, a firefighter with PSAC, a shipbuilder with Unifor, an electrician with IBEW, a trucker with Teamsters Canada, a port worker with the Halifax Longshoremen's Association or a postal carrier with CUPW. These are just a few of the many union jobs done by workers in Halifax.

Since the days of Confederation, unions have gone on to build and shape the economy as we know it today. In fact, the middle class, weekends, and maternity and parental leaves were created by unions.

A union job promises a living wage that supports families and communities; it is permanent and helps build toward a pension. It provides protection and security in the workplace. These are the values that the current government believes in and the kinds of jobs that we believe Canadian workers deserve. With Bill C-58, we are staying true to the promise by banning replacement workers.

Unions have repeatedly told us that hiring replacement workers goes straight against and flies in the face of their free and fair collective bargaining power. It undermines the workers’ legitimate right to strike.

It takes away a lot of power from them at the bargaining table. It literally puts their back against the wall. It also brings frustration and increases tensions, which can sometimes lead to violence on the picket line. That can lead to rifts in a community.

Hiring replacement workers can have an impact on labour relations. Unions have told us that this creates an unequal footing in negotiations. They explain that allowing replacement workers weakens workers’ main tool to exert pressure, which is the right to withhold their labour, to withhold the means of production.

Bill C-58 would set clear rules for both parties. It would set the table for free and fair collective bargaining. It would put the employer and the union on equal footing. All they would have to do is sit down together and find a solution. If they can do that, they will bring stability and certainty. They will stimulate the country’s economy and prosperity.

On top of that, with clear and fair rules in place, we may be able to avoid unnecessary strikes and lockouts. This would create more stability for Canadians and more certainty for investors. That will secure good jobs with good working conditions for the workers.

We are banning the use of replacement workers, or scabs, because we believe in a balanced table, in truly free and fair collective bargaining.

We believe that it is not us against them. It is us, with them. Nobody should be afraid that anyone will try to take something away from them or be better off than they are. It is about helping each other out and finding a solution that will work for everybody.

That is what we are doing with Bill C-58. We are working on getting rid of some of the entrenched resentment that has built up over the years during labour disputes. We are making one of the most significant changes to the federal collective bargaining system that Canada has ever seen, in fact.

Why are we doing that? It is because workers are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and the lifeblood of our communities. They are entitled to safe workplaces and to good working conditions.

We have already done a lot in this direction. We ratified the International Labour Organization’s convention 190 to end harassment and violence in the workplace. Federally regulated private sector workers now have 10 days of paid sick leave. We are modernizing the Employment Equity Act.

Bill C-58 is the next step that will help improve work and working conditions for Canadians. It is about keeping parties focused at the table and providing more stability and certainty for the economy.

When people have good working conditions and are treated fairly by their employers, our society and our economy are more resilient. When the parties focus on the table, the deals get done and they last. The labour movement was founded on the idea that our workplaces and workers’ lives can be better. That is what we should all keep striving for.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member would know or ought to know that this is something the Government of British Columbia was asking for.

What is most important here is that we understand that the best agreements are those had at the table, and that the legislation to stop replacement workers is the right legislation. It is the legislation that would level the playing field and bring fairness to workers, unions and labour, which for too long they have not had.

I am proud to stand here in my place in Parliament, advocate for Bill C-58 and make sure we bring in the best legislation possible for the workers of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right that the legislation is long overdue. The way the legislation has come together is the right way. It has been a tripartite type of agreement where business, government, and labour and unions are at the table working together. With respect to the prolonged period, the 18 months, we are working together with those groups. That is what we want to do: ensure that we get it right and that we have all the pieces in place so we have the best labour stability here in Canada. We are learning from what is happening in Quebec, with its legislation, and in British Columbia. We are taking all the best ideas and bringing them into Bill C-58. That is what we have done. We will do it at the table, working with all the parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

I am proud to speak to and defend Bill C-58, which proposes amendments to both the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. With good reason, the labour movement has consistently criticized the use of replacement workers, deeming it destructive and unfair. Bill C-58 is about restoring that long-overdue fairness and about levelling the playing field.

Relying on replacement workers not only diverts attention from the bargaining table but also prolongs disputes, ultimately poisoning the employer-worker relationship for generations. The crucial question that arises is why Canada should now consider banning the use of replacement workers. Practices' merely being customary does not automatically render them justifiable. Should a worker's right to engage in meaningful labour strikes be compromised by the looming threat of replacement? Is a bargaining table where negotiating power is significantly curtailed truly fair? Can the reliance on replacement workers be deemed appropriate in 21st-century labour relations? The answers to these questions are no, no and no.

My parents fled a right-wing fascist dictatorship to come to Canada to work hard and to contribute to our democracy. In dictatorship Portugal, organized labour and unions were banned because the dictator did not want workers to be treated fairly, to have the right to assemble or to have bargaining rights, and he definitely did not want workers to be able to strike.

I stood on picket lines as an eight-year-old, alongside union members, my parents. My father, a proud member of United Steelworkers at John Inglis and Company, a highly profitable company, contributed to the production of industrial machinery here in Canada. The USW union and the Teamsters were two unions my dad belonged to, and my mother, Maria Fonseca, was a card-carrying member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE. I can attest to the pivotal role these unions played in enhancing the life of our family and the lives of thousands of union employees, and benefiting all workers.

Recalling a distressing moment from my childhood, I vividly remember when my father, Joachim, “Jack”, Fonseca, informed my mother that his union brothers and sisters would be commencing a strike the next day, a chilly February day. His fight was centred around securing better wages, improving benefits, gaining advancements for health and safety conditions and safeguarding his pension. The ensuing strike lasted nearly two months, with replacement workers being a significant factor in its prolonged duration. The company opted to deploy non-unionized management personnel on the production line and brought in replacement workers, commonly referred to as “scabs”. Additionally, it exploited vulnerable workers, employees who were struggling, by encouraging them to cross the picket line. This strategic move not only hindered the progress of negotiations but also poisoned relations between employees and employer and led to the deterioration of friendships among co-workers.

Extended disputes of this nature tend to bring out the worst, placing workers in untenable positions where they must choose between asserting their rights and providing for their family. Recognizing the detrimental impact of such situations, various jurisdictions have enacted legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers. Quebec implemented such legislation in 1977 to curb the violent confrontations arising from strikes and picket lines in the province. Similarly, in 1993, the Government of British Columbia passed comparable legislation in response to the escalating tensions between employers and the labour movement. The outcomes in Quebec and B.C. following the passage of such legislation were notable. The frequency of strikes decreased, providing for more predictability and stability.

We consistently emphasize the importance of focusing on being at the bargaining table. Conversely, on the other side of the aisle, Conservatives always seem to have jumped up and introduced back-to-work legislation, as they say, and to have used replacement workers. It is just wrong. It is crucial to acknowledge that striking represents a last resort for workers, as no one desires to lose benefits and rely on strike pay. Collective bargaining, while challenging, remains the preferred solution.

Our economy relies on employers and unions engaging in meaningful negotiations to secure the best and most resilient agreements. Bill C-58 seeks to maintain focus on the bargaining table, promoting stability and certainty in supply chains and in the overall economy. While each industry and bargaining table may differ, the overarching goal is consistent: keeping parties engaged at the table, fostering a more predictable process and eliminating distractions. The legislation aims to achieve these outcomes for business, employers and unions alike. Emphasizing the importance of this approach is not only a smart strategy but also the right one. Labour has long advocated for such measures, and the positive reactions from labour leaders since the bill's introduction underscore the significance of the bill. As expressed by Gil McGowan from the Alberta Federation of Labour, “[t]his is Canadian politics at its best. This is Parliament working for workers.” Past victories by unions have significantly enhanced the ability of workers to enjoy a decent quality of life. I highlight these points because, now more than ever, legislation supporting workers is crucial.

There are members of Parliament, including the Conservative leader, with a history of attacking labour, attacking unions and undermining the interests of workers. The Conservative leader has been a strong advocate for implementing U.S.-style right-to-work laws in Canada. It is telling that the Conservatives and their leader avoid mentioning the words “union”, “labour” or “scab”. These omissions speak volumes about their anti-labour stance.

Unionized workers are currently leading the way in negotiating substantial wage increases amidst rising inflation. Moreover, it is great that an increasing number of young Canadian workers are expressing interest in the labour movement, initiating union efforts in diverse workplaces such as Uber, Starbucks and grocery stores.

Let us not forget, from during Stephen Harper's administration, the Conservative leader's anti-worker Bill C-377. The Conservatives vigorously opposed card-check legislation, which aimed to facilitate unionization. They opted instead to make things more difficult for workers and to afford employers more time to intervene in union initiatives. The Liberal government, in response, enacted legislation to reverse the anti-union Conservative amendments under Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, bills that undermined unions and the ability of workers to organize. Across Canada, employers invest millions in legal, consulting and security services to thwart union drives, ensuring their lack of success. There have been employers that have helicoptered replacement workers over picket lines into job sites.

The Conservative leader and the Conservative Party advocate importing into Canada U.S.-style right-to-work laws that weaken the labour movement by hindering unions and collective bargaining. Shamefully, the Conservative leader actively promotes right-to-work laws here in Canada. In 2012, the Conservative leader spearheaded a campaign to allow public sector workers to opt out of union dues, directly challenging the Rand formula, a rule backed by the Supreme Court that allows unions to collect dues. The Conservative leader is, unequivocally, an anti-labour-union proponent, aligning himself with extreme right-wing, MAGA politics. Despite the pivotal role played by the labour movement in securing progressive labour laws and improved working conditions, the Conservatives consistently fail to acknowledge these contributions. The Conservative leader's history reflects consistent support for anti-union, right-to-work policies looking to rob individuals of civil and job rights.

In contrast, Bill C-58 legislation under consideration would be unique, arising from tripartite collaboration among employers, workers and the government. It aims to enhance labour relations in Canada, fostering greater stability and certainty for all citizens.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I do not think we have talked about Bill C‑58 in the past 15 minutes. Bill C‑58 is an anti-scab bill.

Scabs have not been used back home in Quebec since 1977. I am very pleased to see that there is equity between Quebec workers with a Quebec employer and Quebec workers with a Canadian employer.

The bill is very sound. I would like my colleague to explain why the Conservatives object to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my deepest condolences to the member and his family. It was very moving when he shared the story about the passing of his mother. My own mother passed away one year and 22 days ago, in November last year. There is not a day I do not think of her. I know it will be the same for him. I wish him all the best in honouring her memory and in working through the grief that comes from her passing.

I want to come back to Bill C-58 because the member spoke very movingly about his mother, as well as other issues, like housing and other bills, but did not actually speak to Bill C-58. The NDP has pushed so hard for this and forced the government to table the bill because of the use of replacement workers in the Windsor area, for example, and Essex County. I know he is familiar with this. Right across the country, Rogers has locked out workers for Shaw cable. Dozens of steelworkers are on the picket line because of the Rogers' lockout, which is using replacement workers in the federal sphere of jurisdiction. It is simply untenable.

As has been pointed out, Bill C-58 would seek to bring a more rapid close to labour disputes because it would mean that CEOs of major corporations would not be able to run roughshod over the rights of their workers, but would have to negotiate in good faith.

What remains a question for me is whether Conservatives will stand with working Canadians and vote for Bill C-58. Could the member tell me if they will vote in favour of the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do extend our most sincere condolences to the member and his family.

It is interesting trying to draw Conservatives out on how they are going to vote. Here we have labour and others who want to see this legislation pass to committee. I have listened closely to the member opposite, and I cannot tell exactly what the Conservative Party is going to do on this. This is Bill C-58.

Just last week, we had debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The Ukrainian heritage community was very excited about that legislation and wanted the House to pass that legislation. Like today, we were left wondering why it was that the Conservative Party did not seem to support Ukraine.

Can the member give a clear indication as to why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House to represent the amazing folks of Essex. I give all my thanks to God for giving me the opportunity.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I lost my momma. If the House would allow it, I would like to share a few words before I dive into Bill C-58.

Mom would text me during question period to say, “Christopher, you are not wearing a tie today, so you must not be speaking.” Mom would also text me to say, “Christopher, stop chewing gum”, “Smile”, or “Christopher, wake up.”

The little things in life get us through, and the real little things in life were mom's chocolate chip cookies. Mom was known on the Hill for her chocolate chip cookies. However, if a member did something bad, I would get a text saying that the member would not be getting a chocolate chip cookie that day.

She was a servant. She served beyond belief. She is the great reason I am where I am, and why I am who I am.

Although those texts have come to a very abrupt end, after she spent only 13 days in hospital battling cancer, her legacy lives on. If my dad and my brothers Jeff and Kim are watching, I want them to know that Helen, our momma, is in the House of Commons with us all here today. As I promised momma at her bedside, I will make her proud and live to serve. I love her. I thank the House for indulging me.

Bill C-58 has two main elements. First, it would ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, such as banks, airports and telecommunications, but not in the federal public service. It would replace an existing, albeit much more limited, prohibition on the use of replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code.

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

It brings forward a lot of questions and a lot of discussion. I would start by saying that I am very proud to be the shadow minister, the critic, for labour. I have travelled across this country, literally from coast to coast to coast, speaking with both unionized and non-unionized workers in places such as Halifax; St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Vancouver, at the Port of Vancouver; and Montreal.

I have been across this country, meeting with both unionized and non-unionized workforces, their management teams, and the folks with their boots on the ground. What I hear all the time is them saying, “Just let me go to work. I want to go to work. I don't really want to be on strike. What I really want to do is have a good-paying job so I can ultimately feed my family, put diapers on my babies, fill their little mouths with pablum and afford to buy my wife some flowers. I can't do that when I'm on strike.”

At the end of the day, we have seen an unprecedented amount of strikes across this country over the last number of years. Every time I turn around, we are dealing with another strike. Why is that? One has to really wonder if it is the cost of living. Is it the cost of food, which our workers cannot afford? Is it the high interest rates? Is it the carbon tax on fuel and food? Is that the reason why? It always goes back to the same question: Why are we seeing an unprecedented amount of strikes? We have to believe that it is due to inflation. It is due to the cost of living, as well as uncertainty, no doubt.

I will speak quickly to the topic of the Stellantis battery plant in Windsor. One good thing about Air Canada is that it is almost always delayed, which allows me more time to speak to my constituents back home when I am at the airport.

Last night, I spoke to someone at IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who said what the problem is. We have an amazing workforce here in Canada of electrical workers. They are bringing them in from Manitoba and Alberta. They are there in Windsor. They are literally in Windsor to start to work. However, they are very concerned about all of the folks potentially being brought in from South Korea to do all work. In the past, those workers did all the work at tier 2 and tier 3. They have done all that work. He said he understood that 10, 20 or 30 people may need to be brought in to program the computers, but the rest of it they already know how to do.

Then I spoke to the carpenter's union, and they said the same thing. They have the whole workforce there. Why are folks being brought in from other places to do the work that they, quite frankly, are trained to do?

The part of this bill that is somewhat confusing to me is that it is only for federally regulated workers. It does not apply to federally regulated public sector workers. If the government is going to tell businesses that there will be no replacement workers, why would the government not do it for itself? It makes one wonder.

We have had amazing, amazing yields in southwestern Ontario this year from our farmers. Some of the highest bumper crops that we have see in a long time. About 90% to 92% of our grain is exported. If we cannot get the grain onto the ships and overseas, we have a major issue, and we have a major issue right now.

There was just an issue on the Great Lakes, which, by the way, got solved. It is like what was reported yesterday in the news about No Frills. The issue with workers at No Frills was solved yesterday, just like at the Port of Montreal and the Port of Vancouver. How were they solved? They were solved at the table through democracy. There is always a solution when we speak. There is always a solution when people come to the table to have good, fair, strong, respectful dialogue. That is how things get solved.

Because I sit on the transport committee, am a bona fide farmer and was a businessman, my concern is that this potential legislation could drive fewer jobs for the country. It is a matter of fact that this could drive potential Canadian business investment away from Canada, which would ultimately mean fewer jobs.

Ironically, at 9 a.m. tomorrow, I head to the Senate to do my darnedest to get Bill C-241, my private member's bill, through committee. Bill C-241 is a bill that would allow the writeoff of travel expenses for both unionized and non-unionized skilled trades workers. I do not know of anyone in the House who would disagree with me when I say that Canada is absolutely in a major housing crisis, and Bill C-241 would allow the mobility of our skilled trades, both unionized and non-unionized workers, to travel across the country.

I look at Stellantis and the entire project, the upwards of $50 billion for the three battery plants, and I know one thing for sure: We need skilled trade workers at those sites. However, I also know that we need to build homes from coast to coast to coast. Hopefully, tomorrow the Senate will give us the green light, so to speak, and Bill C-241 will get through the Senate to support our skilled trade workers.

For clarity, for anybody watching at home, and I am sure a lot are watching me, this is only for federally regulated workers. This does not dive into the provinces and their regulations.

This is going to sound goofy, but during the Port of Vancouver strike, a message was left at my office, and I called the gentleman back. He said he owns a coffee shop, but he cannot get any cups for the coffee, so he will have to shut his doors because he ordered the cups from overseas. It sounds small and insignificant, but that is one more business that shut its doors, is not paying taxes, that is not employing people or laying them off. It is one more business that Canada is, quite frankly, bleeding.

There is nothing more important than our labour force. My father always said it best. Someone can have the greatest widget in the world, but they cannot build it and they cannot sell it without people. There is not a business I know of that is not about the people, and they only ever will be.

The answer is very simple: Get to the table, get the folks at the table and have a conversation. Deliberations have worked in the past. That is where the answer lies.

In closing, I will just finish with the following. I come from the business world but I also was boots on the ground. In my role as shadow minister for labour, I met some pretty extraordinary folks. I think about the folks at the ILWU out in Vancouver, who treated me with so much respect when I visited them two or three times. I think about the folks out in Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. I think about the folks in my own backyard in Essex. Again, it is resounding that it is only about the people.

There is only one way that we are going to rebuild Canada, that Canada is going to be built, that we are going to have enough homes, that we are going to have the manufacturing and we are going to be on the front line in leading-edge technology, and that is with people. However, they need to be Canadian people. They cannot be folks from overseas who are taking away the jobs of Canadians.

I want to thank the Speaker for allowing me to celebrate my mother and allowing me to have a bit of freedom in my speech today. I am so darn passionate and compassionate when it comes to our labour force and it means the world to me.

The House resumed from November 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a wonderful thing to be able to speak. It's something we haven't had a lot of opportunity to do. I am grateful that we are able to weigh in on the subamendment we have today, as well as the amendment and, ultimately, the main motion.

Like my two colleagues before me, I would like to encourage us to move forward as expeditiously as possible. We have two very important pieces of legislation before us. I'm hearing from thousands of Canadians in my constituency office about the importance they see in Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There's an appeal that we get on with this, and in large part, that we make room for labour at the table.

I need to reflect on the fact that it is interesting how our Conservative colleagues, particularly the leader, talk about being friends with labour; yet, every chance that the leader and his caucus have to prevent things from moving forward, they seem to take that opportunity.

We're seeing it with Bill C-58 and Bill C-50. I really would hope that.... We have these important pieces of legislation before us, and I'd like to see us actually move forward for the benefit of Canadian workers.

We've heard a lot of discussion about whether this is a programming or schedule motion. I'd like to remind all my colleagues here that the original motion, when we finally get to it, will allow us to deal with both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 concurrently. I think that's a really wise way to go. It would allow us to have witnesses, the minister and others to deal with both pieces of legislation, so we can get them back to the House in a timely manner.

I won't take up a lot more time. I'm ready to move forward with the vote on the subamendment and, hopefully, a vote on the amendment, so we can get to the main motion as soon as possible. We can build on the work that our committee did previously when hearing from many witnesses on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. We have the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia asking us to move forward with those pieces of legislation as well.

The motion we have from my colleague is a very good motion that will help us advance both pieces of legislation and, ultimately, get them back to the House, so the House can do its job and move forward with the legislation.

That's my intervention on the subamendment we have before us this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[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.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-58, was unnecessary. As someone who values the work of labour unions, a person who appreciates the historic impact they have had on improving the rights and working conditions of Canadian workers, I feel it is sad that we have to consider whether replacement workers should be allowed in federally regulated workplaces.

The use of replacement workers comes about when either a unionized workforce has gone on strike or an employer has locked out its workers. In either case, there are no real winners, so what would bring workers or employers to such a position? Why would they feel it necessary to take such drastic measures if nobody wins in such a situation? The answer is simple. If it seems that Canada has seen more labour strife than at any other time in recent history, the reason is simple. The policies of the Liberal government have made it difficult for Canadian workers to make ends meet.

Workers expect government to look out for their best interests. We have a government that apparently does not understand what is good for people. We see record inflation, food prices spiralling out of control and the dream of home ownership dying for millions of Canadians. Those who are lucky enough to find a place to rent have discovered that rents have also skyrocketed. What is the Liberals' response to these economic problems? Its response includes inflationary deficits and higher taxes, government spending that seems out of control, the highest national debt in the history of Canada and no ideas of how to fix the mess they have created. When the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything for everyone, housing costs have doubled, mortgage costs are 150% higher than they were before the Liberal government took office and half of Canadians say that they are $200 or less from going broke, it is no wonder workers feel abandoned by the government.

The Conservative Party supports the rights of workers to organize democratically, bargain collectively and peacefully withdraw and withhold their services from an employer. We also believe the government should work with unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to develop dispute settlement mechanisms and encourage their use to avoid or minimize disruption to services for Canadians. Bill C-58 will apply to about one million workers in federally regulated industries, many of which are sectors that are critical to national life. For this reason alone, it is important to study this legislation at committee to hear from witnesses, both those who are in favour and those who are against the legislation, to allow members to better understand the implications of this bill.

I am sure the Liberals will tell me that such a study is not really necessary, that they know what they are doing and that this legislation should be passed with a minimum of scrutiny. After all, the Liberals tell us they know what is best for the country, but anyone who questions their dogma, they view as a heretic. In the church that is the Liberal Party, I would be a heretic. I have seen too many Liberal ministers telling Canadians that they know what is best for them when they obviously do not. The government would like us to believe that the Liberals are infallible, but all too often the truth is that they do not have a clue what they are doing. That may be true also with this bill.

I would think that unions would view Bill C-58 as correcting a tilted playing field that has been in favour of employers. They expect that, once this act is passed, the strikes and lockouts will be shorter. In the same way, I would think employers would see Bill C-58 as favouring unions, with the potential of prolonged strikes and lockouts. These are conflicting viewpoints, and whichever one we might adopt may depend on our view of the current balance of power between unions and employers.

Our job in the House is to find a way to craft legislation that is fair to both workers and employers, which is another reason to ensure that we consider the bill carefully so we do not have to return to the subject to fix mistakes made by a rushed process. When the minister spoke in the House just a couple of days ago, he said that consideration of the bill would not be rushed and that it is one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen. I am glad he sees the need for a long and hard examination of the proposed legislation. We all want more deals to be made at the bargaining table. Strikes and lockouts are harmful to workers, employers and the Canadian economy as a whole. The Liberals seem to think that the bill would result in fewer labour disruptions. It will be interesting to hear what witnesses say when Bill C-58 is examined at committee.

One of the areas that may be contentious is allowing employers to hire replacement workers as long as they deal solely with the situation that presents or could reasonably be expected to present an imminent or serious threat. Those threats could be to the life, health or safety of any person; destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises. Allowing replacement workers in such situations seems reasonable. The problem I foresee is one of determining exactly what the situations are when such hiring would be allowed. I would expect unions would quite naturally attempt to limit the use of replacement workers, while employers would try to stretch the definition as much as possible, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe employers and unions alike would be reasonable in all situations and there would be a clear understanding of what represents a safety threat, property damage or environmental damage.

More likely, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would find itself much busier if this legislation is passed, as it tries to work out the details of the legislation in practice as opposed to in theory. No one, not workers, not employers and not the public, likes labour disruptions. In an ideal world, they would not happen. Of course, in an ideal world, workers would not have to worry about having to make a choice between paying the rent and paying for groceries. In an ideal world, Canadians would not be wondering why their government was offering tax exemptions on one form of home heating fuel and not on the others that contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions. In an ideal world, food bank use would be decreasing instead of increasing, and Canadians would not have to worry whether they can afford the ever-increasing cost of food.

However, under the current government, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where the Liberal carbon tax keeps going up, increasing the cost of everything. Canadian workers and employers alike are feeling squeezed by a government that has shown by its fiscal policies that it does not care about either of them. Unions and businesses may have differing views about Bill C-58, but they do have one thing in common: They all know that it is time for the Liberal government to go.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

I stand before the House today to discuss Bill C-58, a piece of legislation concerning the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. This bill, brought forth by the Minister of Labour and Seniors, is a clear product of the NDP-Liberal coalition's agenda. While it is important to look at the contents of the bill, it is also very much of equal importance to look at how the NDP-Liberal coalition is hurting workers they claim they are helping.

In this debate, we must be mindful of the delicate balance between protecting workers' rights and maintaining a healthy, competitive business environment. It is our duty to examine how this bill fits into the larger narrative of the current Liberal government's failed policies, which have wide-reaching effects on the Canadian workforce and the overall economic landscape. As representatives of the Canadian people, we have a responsibility to evaluate this legislation not just in isolation but within the context of its potential impact on our nation's prosperity and the well-being of its citizens.

In recent years, we have witnessed an escalating trend in labour disputes across Canada, with a staggering total of 269 major work stoppages. They include both lockouts and strikes in just the past two years. This disturbing rise in labour unrest is a direct consequence of the current Liberal government's policies over the last eight years.

The Prime Minister's inflationary policies have significantly contributed to this turmoil, leaving workers in a dangerous position, struggling just to make ends meet. The harsh reality is that Canadian workers are increasingly finding themselves backed into a corner. The cost of living has skyrocketed, eroding the purchasing power of their wages. Many feel that demanding higher wages is their only remedy to keep pace with the escalating costs.

This sense of desperation is a clear indication of the government's failure in handling labour relations effectively. The policies enacted have not only failed to alleviate the pressures on Canadian workers but have actively made their lives harder, fuelling discontent and unrest in the workforce.

This situation calls for urgent attention and a re-evaluation of the government's approach to the inflationary policies that make life more unaffordable. It is crucial that we address the root causes of these issues rather than merely applying temporary fixes. The government must take responsibility for the current state of labour relations in Canada and work toward sustainable solutions that truly support and uplift the working class.

In continuing to address the current state of affairs under the NDP-Liberal government, it is important to highlight how these policies are intensifying the hardships faced by Canadian workers. A prime example is the carbon tax, which has resulted in a significant increase in costs across the board. This tax, far from being a simple environmental measure, has had a domino effect, affecting everything from transportation to the cost of basic needs. The burden of these increased expenses is disproportionately put on the working class, who find their paycheques stretched thinner every day.

Moreover, the housing crisis under the NDP-Liberal government has reached a critical point. Housing costs have not just risen; they have doubled. The situation is made worse by mortgage payments, which are now 150% higher than they were when Harper was prime minister. This financial strain is pushing Canadian families to the brink, with over 50% living within $200 of insolvency.

The reality is that the Liberals, now hand in hand with the NDP, have long abandoned the workers they claim to represent. Their policies, rather than offering relief, have contributed to the reality where everyday Canadians struggle to afford the basic costs of living. This abandonment is not just a failure of economic policy but a betrayal of the trust that workers place in their government to safeguard their interests and well-being.

The implications of these policies are far-reaching and deeply concerning. They paint a picture of a government disconnected from the realities faced by its citizens, especially the working class.

The recent revelation concerning the Stellantis battery plant is a striking example of the government's mismanagement and lack of transparency. It has come to light that 1,600 foreign replacement workers will be employed at the facility, a project funded by Canadian taxpayers to the tune of $15 billion. Even yesterday, we learned that up to 900 foreign replacement workers will help build the NextStar battery plant in Windsor. The fundamental question is why these jobs, created with Canadian money, are not being offered to Canadian workers.

This situation is unacceptable. It is a glaring injustice that Canadian taxpayers are financing projects that fail to prioritize their employment. The Prime Minister's office has been silent on the details of the massive corporate subsidies granted to electric vehicle battery plants. The recent revelations by the Parliamentary Budget Officer have only intensified concerns, indicating that the actual costs and implications are far more substantial than initially presented by the Prime Minister.

Moreover, Canadian workers and taxpayers deserve full transparency. Is the Prime Minister planning to use taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers at other facilities, such as the Volkswagen and Northvolt plants? This lack of clarity should be especially concerning for my Quebec colleagues, who might see jobs in their region being outsourced to foreign workers, potentially at the Northvolt plant located in the Bloc leader’s own riding.

If the Prime Minister truly cared about Canadian workers, as the bill suggests, he would disclose the contracts signed with Stellantis, Volkswagen and Northvolt. Canadians have a right to know the financial obligations they are under and the specific job provisions guaranteed for Canadian workers. The Prime Minister should have already ensured that Canadian tax dollars would be funding jobs for Canadian workers, not the employment of foreign workers.

Common-sense Conservatives are committed to ensuring that Canadian tax dollars are utilized justly and that the jobs they help create are indeed available for Canadians. The current situation is a stark reminder of the need for responsible governance that would place Canadian interests and workers at the forefront. We will continue to demand transparency and accountability from the government to ensure that Canadian workers are not sidelined in their own country.

Bill C-58 looks at dealing with the worsening labour relations across Canada, but the real issue stems from the NDP-Liberal government, which has made life unaffordable for the average Canadian worker. The reality faced by Canadian workers today is one of escalating costs, reduced purchasing power and missed employment opportunities, despite significant taxpayer investments. The introduction of foreign replacement workers in key taxpayer-funded projects such as the Stellantis battery plant symbolizes the government's disconnect from the needs and rights of Canadian labour.

The Conservative Party stands firmly with Canadian workers. We advocate for transparency, accountability and, above all, ensuring that Canadians are first in line for jobs created with their hard-earned tax dollars. It is time for the government to stop neglecting these vital principles. Canadian workers deserve a government that champions their cause, protects their interests and utilizes taxpayer funds to actually benefit Canadians. That is the commitment of the Conservative Party, and we will relentlessly pursue this goal in the interests of all Canadians.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the anti-scab legislation. When one looks at page 22 of the Liberal Party platform from the last federal election, one will find a commitment that the Liberal Party made, under its current leadership, toward bringing forward anti-scab legislation. This is a fulfilment of that commitment.

It is really encouraging to have before us legislation that would have a very positive impact on our labour movement across the country, from coast to coast to coast. In fact, I hope that other provincial jurisdictions will look at what the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have had in place for a number of years and, now, what the federal government is proposing within this bill to bring forward anti-scab legislation, and do likewise.

My daughter, who is the MLA for the Tyndall Park riding, through a throne speech, encouraged the provincial New Democratic Party in Manitoba to bring forward anti-scab legislation. Hopefully, my home province of Manitoba will in fact be the third province to bring it in.

I approach this legislation based on a number of factors. As a member of Parliament of Winnipeg's north end and a north-end MLA for almost 20 years, I have always looked at the issue of labour as important. In fact, one thing I would like to talk about is the general strike of 1919 in Winnipeg, which was a very historic strike for Canada as a nation. It lasted for six weeks, from mid-May to virtually the end of June, and I have had the opportunity to raise the 1919 general strike on several occasions.

I would like to highlight a couple of those. Back in 2019, I attempted to get recognition of that particular strike on the floor of the House. The first thing I will quote is that request. Before I do that, I want to emphasize that the boiling point of the 1919 strike was in good part over replacement workers. Today, we are debating anti-scab legislation, which is to prevent replacement workers, and this was a theme of the 1919 general strike in the city of Winnipeg.

I am going to go to May 7, 2019, where I stood in the House from this very seat and asked the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, but first let me just recognize and appreciate the support from the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

There has been discussion among the parties and, if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House of Commons recognize the historical significance of the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, in particular on workers rights, human rights and social advocacy for over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately, we did not get unanimous consent in order to have that recognition, but I still thought it was an important issue to raise.

May 15 is a significant day; for all intents and purposes, it is when the general strike of 1919 started. On May 15, again, I stood in the House at this very same spot and said the following:

Mr. Speaker, it was a general strike. On May 15, 1919, the call was made for all workers to put down their tools at 11 a.m. The first to strike were the female telephone workers, who failed to show up for their 7 a.m. shift.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Winnipeg strike. I want to acknowledge the importance of the labour movement in Canada. Unions matter. Unions represent people, people who work hard, support their families and contribute to their communities and our economy.

Today I thank those pioneers. The labour movement has been essential to promoting fairness and inclusion in our economy. Unions fight for the middle class and have been the driving force behind the exceptional progress made on behalf of women, LGBTQ workers, indigenous workers and workers with disabilities.

When we were elected, we committed to being a real partner with labour. We stand by that commitment, and we will keep working on behalf of the workers and Canada's middle class.

I said that back in 2019; I want to reinforce just how important it is. I often talk about the middle class on the floor of the House. It is something that the Prime Minister talked about even before he became the Prime Minister of Canada: supporting Canada's middle class.

One of the first actions we took was to repeal labour legislation of the Conservative Party, through private members. That was the member, and my colleague and friend, for the Kildonan riding, the minister of labour under the government at the time.

We have worked very closely with labour to ultimately be able to materialize a substantial piece of legislation. I appreciate the fact that the NDP and the Bloc party are going to be supporting this legislation. I would love to see the Conservative Party realize that the economy works better when one has harmony within the labour force.

There is nothing wrong with supporting anti-scab legislation. It is in everybody's best interest. I would ask my Conservative colleagues across the way to recognize that fact and support the legislation. It would send a very powerful message to everyone if, in fact, we could see that take place.

One does not need to say that this is an area that has never been explored before. As I said, the Province of British Columbia has had it for many years; the Province of Quebec has had it for many more, for decades.

I believe that the numbers and the stats clearly demonstrate that, in the end, we have seen more harmony in terms of labour relations in those provinces. This is a direct result of having anti-scab legislation, or at the very least, an indirect result.

I do not say that lightly, because it has been attempted before. I will go back to my home province of Manitoba. Back in 1988, when I was first elected, there was a big labour issue before the chamber. It was based on what they called final offer selection. This was, in essence, a compromise. The premier, Howard Pawley, had made a commitment years prior to the union movement to bring in anti-scab legislation. Well, he did not do so; instead, he brought in final offer selection as a compromise.

The final offer selection, in essence, said that the employer and employee would give their very best offer. The arbitrator would then have to choose one of the two; they could not mix it up in any way. That legislation had a sunset clause on it. That was the closest Manitoba ever came to having anti-scab legislation; it was that compromise.

I remember the debates quite well, because we would be going until two o'clock in the morning in standing committees. I remember the presentations by, in particular, labour movements and the different types of businesses that were coming before the Manitoba legislature.

It was a very heated discussion that took place. However, people lost sight of the bargaining table and the issue of collective bargaining.

There is not a level playing field when an employer is allowed to bring in replacement workers. That became very apparent in those discussions. At the time, we were the official opposition, and we felt we had to fight to keep final offer selection in place in the province of Manitoba, because we knew there was no way we were going to be able to get anti-scab legislation. If we could not get that, then we would stick with Howard Pawley's compromise of final offer selection. Unfortunately, we still lost that because of a lot of political manipulation.

I suspect that the Hansard of the Manitoba legislature back then would show that I was a very strong advocate, because I believe in, as much as possible, striving for labour harmony and supporting the collective bargaining system. This is why it goes as far back as 1988, and members will find that, with respect to labour issues, I often stand in the chamber, and often on behalf of many of my Liberal caucus colleagues. In fact, today, on behalf of all of my Liberal caucus colleagues, I am talking about how important it is to see the legislation before us pass, because we do not know what is on the horizon. Many, including myself, would like to think that we are going to be on this side for the next 10 years, but Canadians are going to have to make that decision. For now, we have an opportunity to do something very positive for the labour force and for business by getting behind the legislation. It is one of the ways in which we can actually support Canada's middle class.

If we go back to the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg, it was the grouping of the middle class that was feeling stepped on and that felt compelled to get engaged in the strike. Interestingly, what brought the strike to what I would suggest was an improper conclusion was when a trolley car that was being used for replacement workers came across from what used to be the old city hall, downtown on Main Street, where there were protests taking place for some of the union leaders who had actually been arrested. Strikers were there, and the trolley car was brought forward, which incited the workers. This incitement led to the trolley car's being turned over. The windows were smashed, and ultimately it was set on fire. People died as a result, not because of being burned but because of the actions that followed immediately after that.

There is a lot to be learned from history, and the Winnipeg General Strike had a profoundly positive impact on the labour movement in Canada. Many of the social programs we have today can be attributed to a lot of the strong labour personalities, and they came from different parties. It does not have to be made a political issue. Each and every one of us can be an advocate. Supporting the labour movement is supporting Canada's middle class and it is supporting our business community. If we learn from the past, we can recognize the value and importance of the bargaining table and of taking actions that would support the collective bargaining process. All one needs to do is look at the provinces of B.C. and Quebec. I truly believe it would provide, directly and indirectly, more labour harmony for Canada as a whole.

The federal legislation would not apply for a majority. The majority would be found within the provincial jurisdictions. I hope the federal legislation would embolden provincial legislatures. That is why I highlight the Province of Manitoba. I think it is in a good position to be able to advance legislation of this nature, because final offer selection died long ago, 30 years or more ago. Therefore, I am hoping the provinces will look at it and take tangible steps to make it happen. It takes away from bargaining, and anything that takes away from the bargaining table is a bad thing. It prolongs disputes. The costs to our economy are enormous. At the end of the day, having a system in place that encourages labour's bargaining with employers is a positive thing.

There are many mechanisms within the legislation itself that the Minister of Labour made reference to, and I would like to highlight a couple of them. Employers would be banned from hiring replacement workers during a strike or a lockout. That would mean, for example, that no new contractors or members of a bargaining unit could cross the picket line. Employers would be able to use replacement workers only to prevent threats to life, health and safety, or destruction or serious damage to property or the environment. If a union believes its employer is in violation of the ban, it would be able report it to the CIRB for an investigation. There would be a substantial penalty of $100,000 per day in certain situations. There would also be a maintenance of activities agreement, which is how employers and unions would agree on what work will continue during a strike or a lockout. It is a truce in the midst of a dispute.

There are a number of clauses within the legislation to reinforce its strength, so hopefully all members will get behind Bill C-58. I have listened to the New Democrats and members of the Bloc, who have some concerns. Let us get the bill to committee stage and see whether there are some amendments that could be brought forward. The government has demonstrated in the past that it is always open to the good ideas of individuals.

The Conservative leader often likes to talk about how he is there to represent union workers. If he is genuine in his comments, then I would hope the Conservative Party would join the Bloc; the NDP; the Greens, I expect; and the Liberals in voting in favour of the legislation. Unanimously supporting the legislation would send a powerful, positive message to all, in particular the labour movement. That would be my appeal to my colleagues across the way. Hopefully, they will respond to the appeal in a positive fashion and will think of the 1919 general strike and how it could impact some of the thinking on the whole process as we debate the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-58 as a substantial piece of legislation that will make a wonderful difference for the labour movement, but not only the labour movement. I think we get lost in this in the sense that it is in the best interests of all, whether for labour or employers. I genuinely believe that. It is something I have been advocating for for many years.

My question for my colleague is in regard to the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. They have had this, in particular Quebec for many years now. Could he again reinforce the benefits that those two provinces have received by having back-to-work legislation? What are his thoughts in regard to why it is important that other provincial jurisdictions follow suit now that we have two provinces and the national government moving forward on anti-scab legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the speech I started the day before yesterday to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-58. For the first time, the federal government is proposing anti-scab legislation for all workers governed by the Canada Labour Code, so, workers under federal jurisdiction, who represent 10% of the country's labour force.

This is a very important debate. This bill is important because it is historic. For generations, labour activists who support workers' rights have been fighting to have the government uphold workers' fundamental right to strike, to ensure that during a labour dispute employers can no longer use replacement workers, to use the polite term, or scabs, to put it bluntly.

This is a big day. We need to emphasize the importance of the step that is being taken today. We will continue to exert pressure so that this bill is improved in committee and passed. Obviously, some aspects of the bill need to be improved, but the fact that the government has introduced such a bill for the first time in history is a good sign.

Over the years, the NDP has introduced a number of anti-scab bills, nine of them, I think, in the past 10 or 12 years. I introduced a bill last year to give the Liberal government a helping hand and point it in the right direction. We managed to hold discussions and make some progress. Today, we have something interesting to look at.

It could make a huge difference for tens of thousands of people. We wish this legislation had come along sooner, because people are suffering now without it. We want to fix the problem so that painful situations like these never happen again.

I get pretty disheartened when organizations like the Conseil du patronat du Québec, Quebec's council of employers, tell us that this bill is not relevant or necessary right now. There are still people on picket lines or locked out who see replacement workers take their place during a labour dispute. That was the case until very recently. It has psychological consequences for workers and it impacts the balance of power between management and unions. It also has very serious and significant consequences for families going through extremely tense times.

The Conseil du patronat du Québec says this is not relevant or timely, but that is simply not the case. Just think about Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy, which was in a labour dispute two years ago, if memory serves me correctly. The workers were replaced by scabs. A small team of 12 or 14 employees was replaced. It took longer and it was more difficult to resolve the problem because replacement workers were brought in.

Let us also not forget the longshore workers at the Port of Québec, who have been locked out for 14 months now. They were kicked out by their own employer, who refused to negotiate in good faith. Because of the lack of legislative measures in the Canada Labour Code, employers can hire replacement workers or scabs. This means that, for the past 14 months, 81 longshore workers have seen people take their place every day on the job site, even though those folks do not have the necessary skills, cause a bunch of accidents and destroy equipment.

It upsets the balance of power and undermines the possibility of reaching a reasonable settlement that works for both parties when replacement workers are given the job and perform the tasks of workers who are out on strike or, in the case of the Quebec longshore workers, are locked out. It is even worse in this case, because this was not their choice. Workers just want decent working conditions. In this case, it is not even about money. It is more about work-life balance and having more humane working hours.

This is happening now. We are not talking about 50 years ago, we are not talking about Murdochville, we are not talking about past battles. We are talking about what is happening right now, today. The situation with the longshore workers at the Port de Québec is tough. It is not the only one and may not be the last, unfortunately.

Now there is a dispute at Videotron, in Gatineau. Again, this is a federally regulated sector. We talked about sports. We could also talk about airports or the rail sector. Here we are talking about telecommunications, another federally regulated sector. It is possible that replacement workers are taking the jobs of the unionized workers in Videotron's west sector, in Gatineau. This would make it much harder to reach a settlement, to get a good contract for the employees.

I want to come back to the example of Videotron because it is an interesting one. Videotron is owned by Pierre Karl Péladeau, who is proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the legislative advances made by his province. Quebec was the first province to implement anti-scab legislation in 1977. British Columbia followed suit several years later. If Pierre Karl Péladeau respects the spirit of the law in Quebec, then he should not use replacement workers in his own company. We will see what happens with Videotron in Gatineau, but I want to make it clear that when workers organize to collectively defend their rights and improve their working conditions, which is well within their rights to do, there has to be a balance of power. For years, that balance of power did not exist. For example, unions were prohibited in Canada until 1872. They were illegal.

It was a crime to collectively organize in order to defend a group's rights and try to improve pay or work organization. It really is thanks to the work of generations of union activists that we have been able to achieve better working conditions. In fact, if we look closely, we realize that before unions emerged and took action, spearheading major battles, there really was no middle class. There were extremely rich owners and extremely poor workers. The workers merely survived, trying to work hard and provide for their children so that these children could take their place in the factory and continue to ensure profits and added value for the owners of the means of production.

It took the courage and action of generations of workers, men and women, who stood up and decided that they had to fight together to lift themselves out of misery and poverty, to get good paycheques, good working conditions and benefits. In fact, the union movement created the middle class. There was no middle class before. It did not exist. In the 19th century there was no middle class. People were either very rich or very poor. Workers struggled to survive under horrific health and safety conditions.

The goal was to establish a balance of power at the bargaining table and negotiate with management, with the employer, to tell them that workers wanted their share of the profits and to live with dignity. There would be no profits without all these workers doing their jobs in factories to produce the goods and services sold. This was how the middle class got its start and managed to rise above poverty and misery. Finally, middle class workers could buy a house, have a pension, look forward to retirement and get insurance and benefits.

That is how we were able to create a middle class in Quebec and Canada, as well as in the United States, of course, France and England.

The problem with not having anti-scab legislation is that the balance of power at the bargaining table is completely undermined. Going on strike essentially sends a message to the employer that production is being halted and that there will be an economic impact arising from this work stoppage, since the product can no longer be sold on the market. If production continues because replacement workers can be hired to keep doing the work, the balance of power at the bargaining table has just been destroyed. It is all well and good for the employer to say that employees can go on strike for as long as they like and that it is not the employer's problem, because, in any case, production and service will continue, the employer will continue to make money, revenue will come in, and there is no problem.

This destroys the workers' bargaining power and drags out the labour disputes. The employer has no incentive to reach an agreement with the union to provide good or acceptable working conditions to its workers. This also creates more tension, which can lead to violence. Imagine being a worker on the picket line every morning who sees someone go in to take their place, their salary and keep the business in operation. Frustration and anger run high. In the past we have seen violent acts and interpersonal conflicts that are totally understandable.

That is why, for hundreds of thousands of workers at the federal level, it is important to have this legislation that will simply provide balance at the bargaining table. Such legislation has existed in Quebec since 1977 in every sector in Quebec, of which there are very many. We are talking about 90% of the labour force. This also exists in British Columbia and the sky has not fallen. Economic development has carried on. In fact, the labour disputes have been fewer, shorter and less violent. That is good for everyone.

Some members of the House use the term “common sense” a lot. I think that anti-scab legislation is just common sense. We are not trying to dictate what workers' wages, working conditions or contracts will look like. We just want to give workers a chance to exercise their constitutional rights and to be in a position where they can use their balance of power, have a say at the bargaining table and negotiate a good employment contract.

I began working as a union representative for the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 2002. Two weeks later, the labour dispute at Videotron began. What I saw 20 years ago is the impact of the employer being able to use replacement workers, or scabs, and just how much that served to prolong the dispute. I was happy to be working with that union, but it was a long, hard battle. In the end, the union was successful. The technicians stayed in the union. However, it is important to avoid this type of situation in the future, like the situations at the Port of Québec and Videotron in Gatineau right now. We must ensure that there is an equal balance of power. It is a matter of fairness. We are not trying to favour one side over the other. These are fundamental rights that must be defended.

I am extremely proud of the fact that the NDP leveraged its strength in Parliament to help workers. I was talking about balance of power at the bargaining table, but we used our balance of power in Parliament. From the very beginning of talks on the agreement we have with the minority Liberal government, the leader of the NDP made it clear that this was an essential condition. After years of struggle, we absolutely had to have anti-scab legislation at the federal level.

I think this is an extremely important step. This direct gain is attributable to the work of the NDP caucus, my NDP colleagues and the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South. He forced the Liberals to introduce anti-scab legislation even though the Liberals have always been against it. Every time we introduced anti-scab legislation, the Liberals voted against it. I think they have seen the light, but I also think they did not have much choice. We twisted their arm a bit and, in the end, thanks to the influence of the NDP caucus and all my colleagues, we are going to get it done.

However, some obstacles remain and some aspects of the bill require improvement. My colleagues and I look forward to sending the bill to committee for improvement. One rather major obstacle right now is the time it will take to implement the bill. A second reading, a review in committee and a third reading will take time. After that the Senate will also be doing its part.

The bill states that its implementation will take 18 months. This is a major irritant for the NDP. Eighteen months is far too long. We fail to understand why it would take that long for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to adjust to the new legislative measure. We think that it might take 12 months or maybe even six months. We will therefore be applying pressure in committee to shorten the implementation time provided for this bill in light of its importance and urgency to a number of sectors of our economy. It will open the door to good working conditions for the people we represent, make room for good employment contracts and good salaries, and improve the situation of just about everyone in the country.

I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

The House resumed consideration from November 22 of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. As the Chair said, it is the most anticipated question of the week.

We are of course expecting unanimity on Bill C-56 tonight. Perhaps we can count on Conservative votes to help Canadians at this time. That is our hope.

This afternoon, we will continue with debate on the government business motion relating to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-58, relating to replacement workers. We will return to Bill C-58 debate on Monday. Tuesday will be an opposition day. On Wednesday, we will call second reading of Bill S-9, concerning chemical weapons.

I would also like to note that it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement that was tabled earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me.

In 1977, 46 years ago, the Government of Quebec passed anti-scab legislation. Anti-scab legislation has been around for as long as I have been alive. It was meant to force employers to negotiate in good faith. Keep in mind that before this legislation was passed, employers had no compunction about hiring new workers while their regular employees were on strike or locked out. Because of this practice, employers had no interest in negotiating to improve working conditions or salaries, since strikes or lockouts had no impact on the company's bottom line.

For 46 years, no strikes or lockouts have dragged out in Quebec, except for those involving federally regulated businesses. It turns out that we have an example of that right now. Over 14 months ago, the Société des arrimeurs de Québec locked out its longshore workers at the Port of Québec. They are not on strike; they are locked out. Because this business's activities fall under federal jurisdiction in Ottawa, it has the right to use scabs, who do not have the required health and safety training. Therefore, every day, they walk right by qualified workers. It is unbelievable that Quebec workers are not protected by the current laws in the area where they live and work, when there have been laws in place for 46 years.

This is another example of Quebec being forward-thinking, compared with the rest of Canada. In the case of the Port of Québec longshore workers, it is not just about protecting these workers, it is also about protecting the public. I would remind the House that scabs have no training in health and safety or in the transshipment of goods. In recent months, there has been an increase in incidents related to red dust and nickel, which pose a danger to the lung health of the people of Beauport—Limoilou and may even reduce their life expectancy in the event of prolonged or repeated exposure.

On top of that, ammonium nitrate is being transported through the Port of Québec. Ammonium nitrate is a product used in fertilizer manufacturing, but it can be highly explosive under certain conditions. The Valero refinery is right across from the Port of Québec in Lévis. A simple spark could lead to a disaster that could extend all the way to Lévis. Hiring scabs, also known as replacement workers to sound better, poses a real danger to the workers themselves, to the surrounding population and to Quebec's economy. If a serious accident were to occur, it could potentially bring operations at the Port of Québec to a halt. In Quebec, 80% of our goods arrive by the river.

The workers are simply asking for better living conditions. If Canada were not 46 years behind Quebec, the lockout at the Port of Québec would never have lasted 14 months.

When the minister replied to me a few weeks ago that anti-scab legislation was going to be introduced, but that it had to be drafted in such a way as to protect the bargaining power of employers at the Port of Vancouver and the Port of Montreal, I was somewhat dubious. How could encouraging employers to negotiate in good faith hurt them?

Quebec's experience shows that anti-scab legislation improves negotiations without giving more leverage to either party. That makes things more equal than they are at the moment. That is a little message for our Conservative friends, although “friends” may be stretching it.

The minister's response a few weeks ago was very telling. The one he gave me today is also very telling. He mentioned Montreal and Vancouver, as if those are the only two ports in Canada. I should point out that a few months ago, the government did not negotiate for long with the Port of Vancouver to get the workers back to work. However, it has never negotiated with the Port of Québec. It is keeping mum and carefully ignoring what is happening in Quebec City, regardless of what the minister is saying today.

Has the government ever had an opportunity to make up for lost time by passing anti-scab legislation? Yes, it has had at least 11 opportunities to do so, and that is just counting Bloc Québécois bills, not even those of the NDP.

When I am told that we need to think about Vancouver and Montreal, that is fine. However, we see that the government is able to move quickly to resolve issues in the rest of Canada, but it does not do the same for Quebec City.

In 2022, two bills were introduced to put an end to the use of scabs, a shameful, unethical practice from another century. The Government of Canada is saying that it is very urgent that we pass anti-scab legislation, but did it move either of those bills up on the schedule? No, it did not. It had to introduce its very own bill. Because of all that, I have a hard time believing that the government really thinks that this is urgent.

Let us look at what the government's Bill C-58 says. We will vote in favour of the bill. There will even be a letter signed by a whole host of academics from across Canada who support the bill. It will be out in a few days. I spoke with some of those academics and they noticed the same flaws that I am going to mention. It is important that we talk about that in committee, so that we can fix as many of the flaws as possible.

For the first flaw, subclause 9(5) states that the employer can use the services of any contractor other than a dependent contractor or any employee of another employer if they were already hired before notice to bargain collectively was given, to perform the same duties as or substantially similar duties to the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit. The services of that contractor or employee can continue to be used in the same way once the strike or lockout is over.

That means that before giving notice to bargain collectively, the employer can hire someone to do the same work as the unionized employee. Of course not a lot of employers are going to say that, since a collective bargaining notice is coming, they are going to hire people and have a surplus of workers, but when there is a lockout they will have enough people. There are not a lot of employers who can afford to have a surplus of labour because that costs a lot of money. Nevertheless, some might see this loophole. This is a flaw that does not respect the spirit of the law. We agree, but there may be some who will try. My advice is to ensure that no employer can use this loophole in Bill C‑58.

The second hitch or problem is that Bill C-58 is not retroactive. This bill will have zero impact on the workers at the Port of Québec. The employer will be able to continue using scabs indefinitely, until its employees are sick and tired of waiting for a job, work and a salary coming in. It just does not make sense. This bill must be retroactive.

Here is the third problem. If an employer has several operating sites, but only one is on strike or locked out, it can take workers from the site that is on strike or locked out and send them to one of the other sites. That is not right. The Quebec law addresses this. An employer cannot transfer employees from one location to another. This should also be included in the Canadian legislation.

Now, let us talk about effective enforcement. That is the fourth problem. It is so urgent to implement this bill that the government wants it to come into force 18 months after it receives royal assent, because the negotiators need a lot of time to sit down at the table and negotiate. It seems that they need training for this.

Take Quebec, for example. It has been an expert in the field for 46 years. Let us calculate the time it takes to complete each step in the process of passing a bill. First reading does not take very long, only a few minutes. Second reading takes a few hours. At the committee stage, things can slow down. Third reading takes a few hours. Then the bill moves on to the Senate for first, second and third readings, committee deliberation, and so on. All that time can add up to weeks, if not months. On top of that, we have to add another 18 months. Is this a joke? No one is going to get me to believe that the negotiator is incapable of sitting down at the table.

That much time is an eternity. All of this leads me to believe that, even though the government calls the situation an emergency, it thinks that workers, especially workers at the Port of Québec, can be easily fooled with smoke and mirrors and will believe anything.

Canada's delay in protecting workers' rights, the flaws in Bill C‑58 and the timelines imposed show that federally regulated workers living in Quebec would be better off if Quebec was an independent country sitting at the table with other nations.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening in support of Bill C‑58. I will say from the outset that I am very proud that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the anti-scab bill. We have been asking for so long that it be passed quickly. We urge all parties in the House to do whatever it takes to pass it as quickly as possible. We will be very pleased when the bill truly passes, including in the Senate, and the government hastens to implement it.

I am sure that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou will provide more details on this than I will. The longshore workers at the Port of Québec are currently on strike in her riding. They have waited long enough. They saw that their right to strike was not being respected because ports are under federal jurisdiction.

I have to say that Bill C-58 is the culmination of a lengthy undertaking. It constitutes a major step forward for workers. They earned it. This bill should have been passed a long time ago. It restores the balance of power between employers and employees in labour disputes once and for all.

The use of scabs has been banned in Quebec since 1977. It is now 2023, and there are still unionized employees in Quebec who work for federally regulated businesses who do not have the same rights. It is as though we have two categories of unionized workers in Quebec. We therefore have a tendency to forget that the use of scabs is completely archaic. We must allow all workers to assert their rights in a labour dispute. We cannot really tolerate the use of scabs. We are wondering why it took the government so long to introduce this bill, given that it has been in office since 2015.

In every sector under federal jurisdiction, when there is a labour dispute and when workers use their ultimate pressure tactic, when the workers choose and use their right to strike, the employer can simply resort to using scabs. That means the power relationship is broken in favour of the employer. The power is given to the employer. There is an imbalance in the bargaining relationship, the power relationship. It is completely unfair. In 2023, it makes absolutely no sense.

We are talking about people who work for railway companies, airlines, the banking sector, and the ports across Quebec and Canada. We know that currently in Quebec there are many workers on strike. Imagine if scabs were used to replace the 420,000 workers on strike in Quebec. That would upset the balance that allows workers to assert their rights. That would be completely unacceptable. That is why we think it is high time to implement Bill C‑58 as soon as possible.

The bill was introduced by the government. We have to assume that they will vote in favour of it. We also know that the NDP supports it. The Bloc Québécois is also on board. That means three parties agree that the bill should pass. Normally, based on the usual legislative process, if the bill makes it to committee, we should be able to pass it by Christmas. The three recognized parties in the House that are publicly advocating for the bill's passage need to get to work to pass it quickly.

As I said earlier, everyone except the Conservatives agrees that we need anti-scab legislation. I would be remiss if I did not mention the speech by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who is from Quebec. He did not say a word about his position, as a member from Quebec, on the whole issue of scabs.

I can say that this came as a great surprise to me, because he is usually a very diligent MP. It is clear here that he is just toeing the party line and avoiding taking a stand.

I am probably coming off as a little impatient. Frankly, I am stunned that we are debating such an important bill today, so many years after Quebec passed similar legislation.

All the same, I would like to remind my colleagues that this is not the first time we have debated such a bill in the House of Commons. In 1990, a certain MP for Richelieu, who is now the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel and our one and only dean in the House, introduced a bill on this subject. At that time, there were five Bloc Québécois MPs; they were recognized as independent MPs. All that to say, it has been a long time. This is not our first attempt. Thirty-three years ago, the dean of today's House introduced an anti-scab bill. Members can understand my impatience. I think it is amply justified.

Over the years, 10 other anti-scab bills have been tabled by Bloc Québécois members, on top of those tabled by NDP members. That is quite a number of times that we have worked together to try and create modern legislation to govern the working relationship between union members and employers.

I will take a moment to commend the members who have teamed up with workers and unions over the years. Bernard St‑Laurent, a former member for Manicouagan, introduced a bill in 1995. Osvaldo Nunez did so in 1996. Ghislain Fournier, another former member for Manicouagan, did so in 1998, 2001 and 2002. He was quite determined and introduced his bill three times.

I am also thinking of Monique Guay, a former member for Laurentides, with whom I had the opportunity to sit. She introduced her bill in 2002. I am thinking of Roger Clavet, a former member for Louis‑Hébert, who introduced his bill in 2004. Richard Nadeau, a former member for Gatineau, tabled one in 2006. I am also thinking of Mario Laframboise, a member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who introduced his bill in 2010.

People have put a great deal of effort into this issue. Obviously, I am thinking of my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville, who introduced her own anti-scab bill this year, Bill C‑276, to put pressure on the current Liberal government, which was being slow to keep its promise.

The Bloc Québécois wants this bill. We are working tirelessly with workers to get it passed and, above all, to get it implemented.

Given that background, I cannot understand why the government decided provide for an 18-month delay before this bill comes into force. I find that very hard to accept. Anyone who cares about workers cannot understand why this bill, which was long awaited by unionized workers, most members of the House, and especially the Port of Québec strikers, will not come into force until 18 months after it receives royal assent.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to convince the Liberals to drop that provision, which makes no sense, and that we will all be able to agree that the dignity of our striking workers is at stake.

I will close by saying that, if we go through the process quickly in the House, then there will be work to do in committee. I hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will rise to the occasion and unite to give our unionized workers their dignity. They have been deserving of this bill for a long time.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that the member of this costly NDP-Liberal coalition is worried, because he just referred to a bill from 2016 that is still not in force. He thinks that this government will now do what it says it will do with Bill C-58. Personally, what worries me are the jobs that will be available tomorrow in the Richelieu region.

Could this government be transparent for once and clearly prove to all Canadians, with documentary evidence, that it has taken the necessary measures to ensure that jobs created with Canadians' money will be jobs for Canadians?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do not believe the Liberals intend to implement this bill in 18 months' time. They want to get through the next election and let the debate die down on its own. That is the reality.

How can I be sure about that? I see it when I look at the contracts that have been signed but that we have not seen, the contracts that will allow for a third of the employees hired at Stellantis to come from overseas. If anyone does not believe me, if people and the NDP are not worried, I for one am very concerned about what is happening.

Let us consider the criteria in the job postings that have been published. Candidates applying for the position of general affairs specialist will have to be fluent in Korean. The company is looking for an electrode quality engineer. These are well-paid jobs. The job posting says that bilingualism in English and Korean is preferred. The plant down there is not even asking for a little bit of French.

What about the plant that will be built in the riding of the leader of the Bloc Québécois? Does the leader of the Bloc Québécois want to know whether the spinoffs of the plant that will be built in his riding will provide jobs to his constituents?

Is anyone making sure that the union jobs created through the contract the federal government has signed with these multinationals will go to Quebeckers?

Will there be the same requirement for knowledge of French for these jobs, or is the company going to demand knowledge of Swedish? Is it going to ask for knowledge of German for the other plant, over in Ontario? It is very worrying.

This is why it is absolutely necessary that we get to see these contracts. We cannot take the Prime Minister's word for it. He underestimated the cost of this project by several billion dollars before the shovels even hit the ground. He said the project would break even in five years. We now know that it will take 20 years.

As for this government's plans to implement Bill C‑58 in 18 months, I will believe it when I see it. In my opinion, what worries Canadians now is whether the money that Canadian families are giving the government is being used to fund good union jobs for Canadian workers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would say that that is a good question to bring up when we get to questions and comments. Nevertheless, I will ask the member to resume debate on Bill C‑58 and try to explain the connection with the Stellantis issue, if possible.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks.

I will make a very direct connection. Bill C‑58 states that the Liberals will implement the legislation in 18 months. Once again, the Liberals are making a promise they will not keep.

I want to demonstrate here in my speech to all my colleagues that the current government's word is not worth much, so I want to look at what they have written on paper and see what that will prove. That is why we are anxious see the contracts of the Stellantis plant and of Northvolt, whose plant will be built in the Bloc Québécois leader's riding, Beloeil—Chambly.

In the Volkswagen contract, what kind of commitments were made to ensure that Canadians' money will be given to Canadian workers? That is our concern in the case of Stellantis. We absolutely must have access to these contracts, and given the magnitude of public funds involved—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for standing up in the House of Commons and raising the important issue of the replacement workers who will be hired at the Stellantis battery plant in Ontario. This is a matter that concerns us greatly for several reasons. Since Bill C-58 deals with the labour force, the unionized workers of this country, we have a golden opportunity to highlight this Liberal government's lack of perspective and clear commitment toward unionized workers.

Why do we say this? Unfortunately, we recently learned that in the contracts the government signed for battery projects, contracts that involve very large contributions from Canadian taxpayers, there seem to be no guarantees about several things. There is no guarantee that the jobs will be for Canadian workers. There is no guarantee that the natural resources used will be from Canada. There is no guarantee that these resources will be processed here. When I say there are no guarantees, I am assuming there are none, because I have not seen the contracts, though I would like to.

Under the Stellantis contract, the company will be getting $15 billion. This breaks down to $1,000 per Canadian household. When each family in Canada files their income tax return next year, it could be said that $1,000 of what they pay the federal and provincial governments will be going to Stellantis.

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

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are all quite happy to see Bill C‑58 tabled.

The bill addresses major inequity between what Quebec workers under provincial and federal jurisdiction experience. I would remind the House that Quebec passed similar legislation in 1977.

Since we are dealing with a minority government, the only problem is that we are talking about 18 months before the bill is implemented. Eighteen months is a long time. By then, we may well have had two more minority governments.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. What does he think about the delay, which I find huge?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right when he says that Quebec's anti-scab legislation has made it possible over the past 46 years to negotiate as equals and ensure that no strikes have dragged on.

He also talked about the 14-month strike at the Port of Québec. Given that it is so urgent that we pass Bill C‑58, I would like to know why he waited 14 months to do anything and why he took action to resolve the disputes in Vancouver but not in Quebec City.

Second, why wait another 18 months after the bill receives royal assent to be able to enforce the law, which will not apply in any way to longshore workers, because there is no retroactivity?

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

moved that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the labour movement has been saying that replacement workers are wrong for longer than this country has existed. People in the labour movement have been telling us that replacement workers distract from the bargaining table and prolong disputes and that the use of replacement workers can poison the relationship between an employer and workers for generations after.

We listened to workers and I am very proud to say that on November 9, we tabled Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

Some people have asked why now. Why should Canada ban replacement workers now? Just because it is the way things have always been done does not mean it is the way that things should be done. The option of replacement workers is something that many of us have taken for granted over our lives. However, should a worker's right to meaningfully withhold their labour be surrendered to the possibility of being replaced? Is a bargaining table where one's bargaining powers are fundamentally limited a fair bargaining table? Are replacement workers part of how we ought to handle labour relations in the 21st century? The answer to all those questions, I would argue, is no.

Bill C-58 will prohibit the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. Violators will be fined $100,000 a day.

This bill is unlike others that have come before this House in years past. Unlike previous legislation to ban replacement workers, this bill was borne of tripartism. It is the result of employers, workers and government all coming together, sitting at the same table to discuss an important issue in Canadian labour relations.

This legislation will improve labour relations in Canada. It will provide greater stability and certainty for all Canadians.

I personally sat in on the consultations with employers. I sat in on the consultations with labour and I sat in on consultations with employers and labour together because I knew this bill had to be forged through a true tripartite approach. The consultations were messy at times, but they forced people to listen to one another. It was not just employers and unions sitting at two sides of a table, shouting at one another. It was employers, unions and government sitting side by side, working together to build better legislation.

These consultations were not easy. They were tense and sometimes difficult, but they allowed the parties to reach an agreement.

This bill's improvements to the maintenance of activities process are a direct result of that work. A maintenance of activities agreement is how employers and unions come to agree on what work must be done during a strike or a lockout. It is a truce in the midst of a dispute to protect the health and safety of Canadians and prevent damage to property and to the environment so that there is a job site to come back to when the negotiations have inevitably concluded.

In the federal sector, employees and their employers know that so much of their work impacts the health and safety of all Canadians. We are talking about the movement of critical medical supplies across our supply chains, the sharing of emergency information through telecom services and the maintenance of sensitive transportation infrastructure. All of these services, if not supported and maintained, can harm the health and safety of Canadians.

Right now, parties are not required to have a maintenance of activities agreement or even to come together to determine whether they need one. With this legislation, employers and unions will have to come together and determine what work needs to continue during a strike or lockout, if any. We are setting clear timelines on this. After they give notice to begin bargaining, unions and employers will have 15 days to come to an agreement. If they cannot come to an agreement, the Canada Industrial Relations Board will come to one for them within 90 days. This is important. It means more certainty and predictability in collective bargaining for businesses, for unions and for employers alike.

Stability and certainty are guiding everything we are doing.

We have heard from our colleagues across the aisle, some of whom have suggested we pass and bring this bill into force in the next six weeks, but when making one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen, we cannot be rushed.

Bill C-58 will change the bargaining table. It will change the role of the Canada Industrial Relations Board and it will fundamentally change how labour relations operate in this country. We are asking the CIRB to resolve issues around replacement workers on new and predictable timelines, to resolve maintenance of activities disputes within 90 days if parties cannot do it in 15. So they need to staff up. They need to strengthen their processes. They are already telling us what they need because the purpose of the CIRB's creation was to take labour disputes out of the court system, to free up the court system and allow labour disputes to be processed in reasonable order.

We are building up the CIRB to stay true to that mission. It is the only way we will make this legislation work. It is a massive change and they need time. All parties need time to prepare and adapt to their new requirements and obligations, and to formulate new strategies for the bargaining table, so that this legislation makes the positive impact that we know it can and should make for stability, for certainty.

To those who have questioned if this bill will in fact result in that, who have raised concerns with these changes, I understand. As union leaders told me after we tabled this bill, in a bit more colourful language, this is a big deal. It is disruptive; it is a change, but I can tell colleagues right now that it will bring more stability, more balance and more certainty to how we collectively bargain in this country because we are bringing the focus back to where it belongs: the table.

Just look at the bill. Look at the improvements that will benefit businesses, unions, employers and the public alike. One does not have to look far to understand what it means. As we speak, workers at the Port of Quebec are on the front lines of this issue. They have been replaced and they have been on the picket line for over one year. Those workers on the front lines every day are ongoing proof for why we need this kind of legislation because replacement workers prolong disputes.

Workers at the Port of Québec are facing this problem at this very moment.

They have been replaced for over a year now. Replacement workers prolong disputes. The longshore workers are on strike, as is their right, but the replacement workers have disrupted negotiations.

For 14 months, longshore workers have been on strike there, exercising their constitutional right to do so, and for 14 months, replacement workers have been operating the port. That is 14 months of earning less than their salary, with no benefits, no coverage and no work. How quickly could this dispute have been resolved, how long could we have had a permanent and resilient agreement between the union and the employer, if replacement workers had not been an option and if the only option had been sitting down at the bargaining table to negotiate a deal that works for everyone?

Long, drawn-out disputes like this can bring out the worst, because workers are left in impossible situations, choosing between standing up for their rights and putting food on the table for their family. In fact, this is why other jurisdictions have decided to bring in legislation to ban replacement workers. When the Government of Quebec brought in its legislation to ban replacement workers in 1977, it was to stop the violent confrontations to which strikes and picket lines were leading in that province. In 1993, the Government of British Columbia passed similar legislation to address the increasingly hostile relationship between employers and the labour movement.

What happened in Quebec and B.C. after that legislation was passed? There were less frequent strikes. In B.C., there was no discernible impact on the number of strikes. Over the past close to 30 years, strike activity in the province has never gone above the 1993 numbers. In Quebec, while transitions in Quebec's economy in the 1970s did cause a brief uptick in strikes, they have declined ever since.

Strikes are less common in Quebec, even with its legislation banning replacement workers.

To those who still say this bill would result in more strikes, I will remind them where the state of play stands at the federal level. We are very fortunate to have the absolute best mediators at the federal labour department. The federal mediation and conciliation service has resolved 96% of labour disputes within the last year, without a work stoppage. It is the gold standard. Ninety-six per cent of the time, most Canadians never hear about labour negotiations at federal workplaces across the country. There might be tense negotiations and they might be messy, but they are settled at the negotiating table, and that is thanks in part to our federal mediators. It is only 4% of the time that federal labour negotiations enter the public conversation.

I am often seen in the media repeating the same message I always do, which is to focus on the table. Every single time, others will be on the same evenings news I am on, repeating the same message they always do, which is to bring out back-to-work legislation and to bring out replacement workers. They ask why the feds will not step in.

We have to remember that striking is a last resort for workers. Nobody wants to lose their benefits and live off strike pay. It is an anxious, uncertain time for anyone. Collective bargaining can be hard work, but it is always the answer. Our economy depends on employers and unions staying at the table to do the work and reach the best and most resilient deals. Bill C-58 would keep parties focused on the bargaining table. That is how we find stability and certainty in our supply chains and our entire economy. Every industry and bargaining table is different, but our goal in all of them is the same: to keep parties focused at the table, create a more predictable process and remove the distractions. That is what this legislation would do for businesses, employers and unions alike.

This is not just the smart thing to do; it is also the right thing to do. It is something labour has been asking for since before we were even a country. The reactions I have heard from labour leaders over the past 13 days speaks to how much the bill really means to them. As Gil McGowan of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “This is Canadian politics at its best. This is Parliament working for workers.” As Bea Bruske, head of the Canadian Labour Congress said, this is a vital way to increase fairness for workers.

As Magali Picard of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec put it, this bill changes Canada's collective bargaining landscape.

As the Fish, Food & Allied Workers said in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with this bill we would be doing away with “a regressive, anti-worker practice that has long eroded collective bargaining rights.”

Last year, we passed a bill to give workers in federally regulated sectors 10 days of paid sick leave, because we learned a lot from COVID when it came to sick leave. If we, as a government, were going to be asking people to stay home for two weeks when they became sick, we had to give them the ability to do so. That bill passed in the House with unanimous consent, because we all agree workers should never have to choose between getting paid and getting better. Members will recall that, at the time, workers in the United States were striking over their ask of one day of paid sick leave to stay home from work when they are sick. In Canada, workers now get 10 days, and that passed unanimously.

When the time comes, I hope every member of the House, Liberals, New Democrats, Bloc members, Greens and Conservatives, will stand up and vote to keep collective bargaining free and fair.

This legislation is needed to keep labour relations strong in Canada, to keep employers and unions at the bargaining table, and to ban replacement workers.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Mr. Carrière.

You know, Liberals believe in the power of the bargaining table. That's why we introduced Bill C-58, which will ban the use of replacement workers. That's what differentiates us from the Conservative Party: We believe in the power of the bargaining table and we're putting forward the ban on replacement workers.

Are you able to comment? Have you already seen the spectre of AI being part of discussions at the bargaining table? Are you currently seeing negotiations with employers? Are you seeing AI being raised in those bargaining discussions? I'm not sure how much time you've spent at those bargaining tables, but can you tell us a little about whether it's part and parcel of those discussions already?

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Export Promotion]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, colleagues. It's really good to see you.

Let me begin by acknowledging that I appear before you today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I'm pleased to be here today to discuss Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, or CUFTA.

As you know, Bill C‑57 continues to be considered by the House of Commons. I am pleased that the committee is beginning preliminary discussions on this important piece of government legislation.

I recently returned from the G7 trade ministers' meeting in Japan. Multilateral institutions like the G7 helped to establish an era of unprecedented global stability and prosperity. That stability, however, is now under threat from autocratic and illiberal regimes abroad. Of course, nowhere is the threat to liberal democracy more obvious than in Ukraine.

Let me be very clear. Our government will stand with Ukraine until they win this war, and we will be there to help Ukraine recover from the devastating impacts of Russia's illegal invasion. A modernized CUFTA will play a crucial role in that process. Canada and Ukraine have a unique and storied shared history. This modernized trade agreement represents a historic milestone in the Canada-Ukraine relationship. While the original CUFTA was comprehensive from a trade-in-goods perspective, it did not include chapters on services, investment, inclusive trade and other areas that Canada now often seeks in our comprehensive FTAs.

In July 2019, Prime Minister Trudeau and President Zelenskyy announced plans to modernize the agreement, and following the delays of COVID-19, my Ukrainian counterpart, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Economy Yuliia Svyrydenko, and I announced the launch of modernization negotiations in January 2022.

As we all know, less than a month later Russia began its illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This caused another few months of delay until May 2022, when Minister Svyrydenko conveyed to me her government's readiness to initiate and indeed expedite negotiations to strengthen the bilateral relationship and support Ukraine's long-term economic and trade interests.

This is no minor detail, and I'm sure the committee is aware that the Conservative member for Cumberland-Colchester has suggested that Canada somehow took advantage of our Ukrainian allies as part of the FTA negotiations. In fact, this is precisely the opposite. It was our Ukrainian friends who set the pace for these negotiations. They did so with conviction, and they did so in the face of significant, even existential challenges and threats.

In conversation with my Ukrainian counterpart, she stressed time and again the value Ukraine places on its relationship with Canada and how important it was that Canada proceed with these negotiations as a sign of confidence to Ukraine. Canada will always be an unwavering ally to a sovereign and independent Ukraine.

In June of 2022, Canadian and Ukrainian officials set to work. The conclusion of these negotiations was announced on April 11, 2023, and recently this landmark initiative came full circle when Prime Minister Trudeau and President Zelenskyy signed the final modernized CUFTA in Ottawa in September.

This agreement will provide Canadian businesses with access to an important and dynamic market and it will support Ukraine's long-term recovery and trade interests.

Some members of the opposition have characterized this agreement as “woke”. Honestly, I don't know what they mean by that. This is a high-standard trade agreement that is good for Canadian businesses and for Ukrainian businesses.

For Ukraine, the agreement is much more than that. It is a manifestation of Ukrainian territorial and economic sovereignty. It's an expression of the values of openness and democracy, and it's made possible by an international rules-based order. Vladimir Putin, of course, despises all of these things and when members of the official opposition grasp at straws to criticize this agreement, I'm left to wonder if they realize that it's Putin's agenda that they're advancing when they do so.

In fact, by serving as a demonstration of Ukraine's ability to adhere to ambitious commitments in a range of areas, this agreement will serve as a model for Ukraine's efforts to advance economic integration with other partners around the world. This agreement will be a strategic advantage and show confidence in a free and democratic Ukraine. In two weeks' time, I will be participating in the second annual Rebuild Ukraine Business Conference in Toronto, where Minister Svyrydenko and I have both been invited to speak about a modernized CUFTA.

I have yet to write my remarks for that event, but I know, for sure, that those in attendance and those following the conference across Canada and Ukraine expect and deserve results. They don't want to hear me talk about partisan politics. They don't want to hear me talk about Conservative procedural games. They want to hear about our progress. They want to hear about how we're on track to pass this bill. They want to hear about what our Parliament can do when we work together and when we show our unwavering support for Ukraine. That's the message I want to deliver.

Colleagues, I'm confident we can meet the moment that is before us.

The incredible officials who are with me and I are ready to speak to the committee members and answer their questions.