Evidence of meeting #111 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
Madam Clerk, we are voting on Bloc Québécois amendment number 3.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
We'll move to NDP-5.
Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment NDP‑5 addresses a somewhat contentious issue. Our view is that clarification is needed with respect to union strategies that might be used during partial or rotating strikes.
In some sectors, certain unions have often done that as pressure mounted. Rather than immediately trigger a total strike on certain days, or a general unlimited strike, a step-by-step process is possible. We, and many union organizations, don't think the act is clear with respect to when replacement workers can be used during partial or rotating strikes. That's why we are proposing this amendment.
The purpose of amendment NDP‑5 is to protect union strategies. It means that if a partial or rotating strike is called, these strategies will be included in the protection provided by the anti-strikebreakers act, to prevent people from continuing to go to the workplace if the location is changed or if it is a partial strike.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
We can't support this amendment because we feel it would take away the tools from the unions.
In particular, with this amendment, if a union wanted to do a rotating strike with 5% of its workforce and walk the picket line while the other 95% worked, it wouldn't be possible. We are worried about the unintended consequences of the union wishing to withdraw some of their services on a particular day or what have you, so that's it. We won't be giving the....
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, Madam Clerk, we will have a recorded vote on NDP-5.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
We'll move to NDP-6.
Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You'll see that the next two amendments are fairly straightforward, because we previously added paragraphs 94(5)(c) and 94(5)(d) to include employees, volunteers, students or other members of the public at another workplace.
As there were additions, it simply amounts to a harmonization amendment. We simply wanted to say that it wasn't only paragraphs 94(5)(a) and 94(5)(b), because paragraphs 94(5)(c) and 94(5)(d) were added to the act when amendment NDP‑4 was adopted.
You'll see it again in amendment NDP‑7.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
There is an additional item designed to make unions the first to be approached for duties to be performed at the workplace; it's also in the clauses already provided in the bill. Accordingly, it provides that the union be given the first opportunity to send members of the bargaining unit to the premises and do the work, if that is what the local union wishes. It's the union's decision.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I just want to understand what the full effect of this is. Is it just proposing paragraphs 94(7)(c) and (d) because of a previous amendment, or is more than that? If it's more than that, what is it?
I'd love to hear from our witnesses on that, or the legislative clerks.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Sure. Direct your questions to whomever you choose.
We'll go to the departmental staff, and then if that's not clear we'll go further.
9:30 a.m.
Manager, Workplace and Labour Relations Policy Division, Department of Employment and Social Development
The effect of the addition of this new proposed paragraph 94(7)(c) would be essentially to impose a requirement on the employer with regard to using replacement workers. Before the employer could resort to using replacement workers—who would otherwise be illegal under the act to deal with some of these exceptional circumstances, like threat to life, health safety, etc.—the employer would be required to give union members the opportunity to do that work during a strike or lockout before resorting to those otherwise illegal replacement workers. It's adding a step, essentially, before the employer can use the exception listed here.
I'm happy to elaborate on that. I don't know if that's clear.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Seeing no further discussion, I'm going to call a recorded vote on NDP-6.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move to NDP-7.
Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
As for amendment NDP‑7, I don't think it's needed now that we have adopted amendment NDP‑6.
May 2nd, 2024 / 9:30 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment NDP‑7 is in fact no longer required, because the change was already included in the previous amendment.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chair, would it be possible to have a brief break? We've had lots of changes to this bill. We're getting close.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
That's a good idea. We'll see if we can track down where the coffee went.
We'll suspend for five minutes.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Committee members, you asked for a five-minute suspension. You got a little over six minutes.
We will resume.
We are now at BQ-4. Go ahead, Madame Chabot.
Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
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.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is there any discussion?
Seeing none, I will go to a recorded vote on Madame Chabot's amendment, listed as BQ-4.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 10)
Now we have amendment NDP-8.
Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's a harmonization provision to include paragraphs 94(5)(c) and 94(5)(d), as proposed in a previously adopted amendment.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is there any discussion?
Seeing none, I will go to a recorded vote on NDP-8.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 11 to 14 inclusive agreed to)
Now we have amendment BQ-4.1, which proposes new clause 14.1.
Go ahead, Madame Chabot.