Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2024

[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?

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

If you're narrowing it down to two, I assume you know the answer, so go ahead, please.

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

I think they go to work for a paycheque, so they can provide for their families, and I think they go to work for a sense of purpose. We know from previous testimony that they don't feel purpose; they feel demoralized because of these outside contractors.

When we look at the messages we're getting, we see that Canadians are paying 46% of their paycheques in federal taxes. I just want to break this down for you, Minister. I'm sure you know this. People are writing to me, and they don't even have an incentive to go to work or to work overtime.

If you're making $100,000, which used to be so much money. People have never made more money and been less well off, because we have the worst economic growth, per person, in the G7. This hasn't happened since the Great Depression. Let's say you take on an extra $30,000 in overtime. I'm going to put this in context for people. If you make $37,000 in overtime, you're going to pay $22,000 in federal tax.

Now, you've destroyed their purpose because you've demoralized them by hiring outside consultants, and you're taking away their incentive to go to work for their paycheque.

My other question for you is regarding the headline: the “Plan to use 900 foreign workers at Windsor EV battery plant called an 'insult' to Canadian labourers”. How do you reconcile that you care about workers, but you're doing all of this at the same time.

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

I'm glad you brought up Windsor because I was going to bring it up, too. I mean, this is—

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

I'm sorry. I do apologize. I do want to tie this all in because I do want to move a notice of a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri. Your time is up.

We'll now move to Mr. Long for five minutes.

[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.

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

Let me begin, first of all, with.... Again, this is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting collective bargaining in unionized labour within the private sector in Canadian history. The banning of replacement workers is something that union leadership in this country have been asking for since before Canada became a country.

While many of the points that have been brought forward on other matters—issues of the day and larger issues of affordability—are very important to workers, I can tell you that there are an awful lot of them who would resent using this place as a platform for partisan politics rather than talking about the matter at hand. This is a moment for workers. Allow them the moment and the respect and dignity that they are due by taking this legislation seriously and talking about this legislation.

That is what I would say first and foremost. This is that important to them, and they have sat here and told you that. The leadership of unions in this country who have appeared before you and given testimony on the importance of this piece of legislation, on the focus on this piece of legislation, are doing so because their memberships have told them that, too. Over the course of 150-plus years, this is a moment. I would implore you to give them that dignity, to dig into this legislation.

I know that we often use these committees to talk about other things, but I would tell you that this is so important to unions and union membership in this country. Whether you like it or not, please focus on this. This is that important.

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

Thank you, Minister.

I want to share the rest of my time with MP Coteau.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Minister, for being here.

This bill is an important piece of legislation. I think it's not only important for workers, but to ensure that we have a functioning working society that really allows people to have the type of dignity and participation necessary to do well in Canada.

I know that this legislation means a lot to me personally. My mother worked in the food-service industry, and they brought in replacement workers when I was about 15 years old. There were three boys in the house, and my mum was a single mother. They brought in replacement workers, and it was very challenging for that workplace at that time. These were not very lucrative jobs, but they paid the bills. When workers' rights are violated in that way, I think it really takes away from the integrity of the workplace and workers in general.

I just want to thank you and your team for getting to this point. I know that you've had a lot of resistance.

Are we done?

Thank you very much, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Vignola, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, I pointed out aspects of the bill that could be improved, including the implementation delay and the possibility of subcontracting prior to the filing of negotiation documents. However, there is also a major omission in the bill. I understand that it may not be possible to add it, but I want to point it out.

For 18 months, there's been a lockout at the Port of Quebec. It's not just the longshore workers who are going through this, but also the population. Scabs aren't trained to be longshore workers, and there are more incidents of nickel dust in the air—which is a danger to the whole population. What's more, there's ammonium nitrate at the Port of Quebec; if you do your research, I don't think I'll need to give you any more details about what can be caused by mishandling ammonium nitrate.

The issue is that the current bill won't apply to people who are currently locked out, even if the period prior to implementation were shortened to nine months. What do we say to the dock workers? What do we say to the Videotron employees who are currently locked out? What do we say to them as they see strikebreakers passing them on their way to do their job, sometimes in a way that endangers citizens?

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

At the Port of Quebec, 81 longshore workers have been locked out for 18 months. When an employer locks out its employees and uses replacement workers, it's not fair.

Last September, workers rallied at the Centennial Flame in Ottawa to demand this legislation. I was proud to join them. Banning replacement workers puts everyone on a level playing field, and encourages the parties to negotiate and reach an agreement.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. O'Regan, but this bill will not apply to the Port of Quebec longshoremen who are currently locked out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

The time has gone over.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

A little earlier, I said that this bill was perfectible and that we could make improvements. Obviously, the time frame for its implementation is something that has been highlighted by the unions as problematic, since it might not come into force until after the next election. I hope the committee will do a good job of trying to consider the demands of the labour movement and reduce this implementation delay.

Minister, you just said that when there are replacement workers, it's not fair. I couldn't agree with you more. The president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada spoke about striking workers at the Department of National Defence's Staff of Non-Public Funds, and reported that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are being used as replacement workers for these workers who are in a labour dispute.

If it's not fair to have your job stolen while you're on strike, what can you do to prevent this from happening to this unit that is negotiating as we speak?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question.

I, of course, as he would understand, hesitate to get involved in a particular case, other than to say that....

Actually, before I do that, I was interrupted by the member, earlier, when I spoke about standing with Port of Quebec workers and speaking with them by the flame last year. They know what we are doing. They are incredibly supportive of the work we are doing, knowing full well that this piece of legislation will not affect their current situation.

I think that speaks very much to what they understand to be the long fight. I also think I would not have to argue for too long that the idea of retroactive legislation is something that legislators both at this table and within the House would take very seriously because, in fact, that's what we would be calling for—legislation that would have an impact upon a critical part of our economy retroactively—and that's not how we operate.

Those workers from the Port of Quebec, whom I met with and stood with when they protested here in Ottawa last year, wished me bonne chance and are behind us in our effort to make sure workers in this country are treated with dignity.

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

Back to my question, Minister.

What can you do for those workers who are currently on strike at National Defence and who, it seems, are being replaced by members of the Canadian Armed Forces? If being replaced while in a labour dispute isn't fair, what can you say to these women and men who are currently on the picket lines while they see their work being done by others?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We looked back, and it appears like the points of order that were happening were included in the time for Ms. Ferreri, which is why she was surprised when looking at her own clock. I know you're a very fair chair, and you do time fairly. However, it appears that the points of order—or a large part of them, anyway—were part of that time. I'm wondering if Ms. Ferreri can have her time back, please. It's roughly about 20 or 30 seconds.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray. I was timing it. I allowed it to go over by 16 seconds to accommodate the two points of order. Thank you for that.

We have now concluded the two hours of the meeting. Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The meeting is adjourned.