Human Resources Committee on May 2nd, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you heard in testimony from various union organizations when this bill was being introduced by the government, we were struck by the fact that public service employees were not covered by the same provisions. Legitimate questions were asked. For example, how can such an act not apply to federally regulated businesses, and why can't our own government, as an employer, protect federal public servants?

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the provisions of part 1 of the Canada Labour Code pertaining to replacement workers, which we are now studying, apply to the public service and its employees, with appropriate modifications, of course.

The principle and spirit of this amendment are meant to ensure that public service employees benefit from the same provisions.

[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]

I really respect your decision. I think the matter of eligibility can be included. They are different statutes, but the purpose of this amendment isn't to immediately amend the Public Service Employment Act, but rather to ensure that public servants are covered and that the act is subsequently modified to include the federal public service.

So with respect, Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

I made my ruling. We'll move on to clause 15.

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

No. She just challenged your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That was my mistake, Madame Chabot.

Madame Chabot has challenged my ruling, which takes us directly to a vote.

Committee members, you can uphold the ruling of the chair, or you can agree with Madame Chabot. It is left to the committee members to decide. The recorded vote is on the ruling of the chair.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Ariane Calvert]

Members, the question is, shall the chair's decision be sustained? That means that if you vote in the affirmative, you're voting to support the chair's ruling. If you vote in the negative, you're voting against the chair's ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The chair's ruling was upheld.

(Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to)

(On clause 17)

On clause 17, we have NDP-9.

Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.

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

Mr. Chair, amendment NDP‑9 is no longer relevant given the change that was previously made to clause 7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. You're not moving it. You're withdrawing it.

Shall clause 17 carry?

I see agreement. Clause 17—

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

No, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Did somebody say no?

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

We're at clause 17, Mr. Chair, not clause 18.

I'd like to ask the witnesses a question about clause 17 before voting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot, we lost the translation, so could you repeat that?

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

I understood that amendment NDP‑9 was not being moved, but we still have to rule on clause 17. I have a question about the transitional provisions. I won't read the entire clause, but subclause 17(3) specifically says that “subsections 94(4) to (8), apply as of the day on which this section comes into force in respect of any strike or lockout that is ongoing on that day.”

I'd like to be sure that I properly understand this clause. So on the day this bill comes into force—and that is something we will be voting on shortly—let's say it will come into force tomorrow, the transitional provisions mentioned in clause 17 would apply if there were any ongoing strikes or lockouts.

My question is whether the transitional provisions would apply on the day the bill comes into force?

[Ryan Cowling]

Yes, that's right.

The provisions related to the ban on replacement workers will apply as of the day the bill comes into force and will apply if there is an ongoing strike or lockout as of that day.

In practice, that means that if an employer is using replacement workers who would be prohibited by the ban when the bill comes into force, then as of the day that it comes into force, they would no longer be able to continue doing so.

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

So the transitional provisions would apply on the day the bill comes into force.

[Ryan Cowling]

That's right.

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

So it wouldn't be retroactive. The transitional provisions would apply only if there were ongoing strikes or lockouts when the bill came into force.

Unfortunately, there are some locked-out workers at the moment. I'm referring to the workers at the Port of Québec, where there are replacement workers, and also at Videotron. It's clear for them: If the bill were to come into force soon, it would resolve the dispute, but it wouldn't deal with their situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I see no further discussion, so we'll vote on clause 17.

(Clause 17 agreed to)

(On clause 18)

Madame Chabot, you have an amendment, BQ-5.

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

Since this bill was introduced, the government and the NDP have been proposing that it come into force only 18 months after it receives a royal assent. We find this length of time to be excessive given our stated objective. When a bill is introduced, the expectation is that it will come into force as soon as it receives royal assent so that its provisions become applicable.

The bill prescribes a period of 18 months prior to its coming into force, which strikes us as excessive. Royal assent is first required, which, if all goes well, requires another six months or so. It would only come into force 18 months after that, for a total of 24 months. Until then, we would still be stuck with the same obsolete Canada Labour Code rules to protect the right to strike, which is a fundamental right of workers. We find that unacceptable. We believe this bill will be historic as soon as it comes into force.

Our amendment proposes that the act come into force the day after royal assent, and not 18 months afterwards, as provided in the bill.

Furthermore, we have trouble understanding how our NDP colleagues could possibly have agreed to an 18-month period before the act comes into force. We would like to get some support, in the form of backing from those who represent the rights of workers, or at least claim to represent them, to make this law applicable.

Accordingly, I am asking all of you to vote for our amendment, particularly as we have just put the finishing touches on the bill. I believe the contents are good, even though we feel that a number of exceptions should have been removed. We need to find the means to achieve our ambitions.

The government and the minister have frequently argued on behalf of more human resources for the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. The board came here to talk about their resources, which I would in fact agree are in short supply. However, it's up to the government, given its aspirations and its goals, to make sure that the bill comes into force, with the turnkey resources needed to make it work.

Our amendment states that the act should come into force on the day after royal assent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

If BQ-5 is adopted, NDP-10 cannot be moved, because it is in conflict.

Is there any further discussion on BQ-5?

Not seeing any, I will call for a vote on BQ-5.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

BQ-5 is defeated, so that allows us to move to NDP-10.

Monsieur Boulerice, go ahead on NDP-10.

I'm just going to remind members that the lights that are flashing simply deal with the opening of the House.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We did indeed hear from union organizations and witnesses on their serious concerns about the 18-month time period before the act comes into force. It's too long. We would like people to be able to benefit from this anti-strikebreakers act as soon as possible. Personally, I would have liked an act like this to have come into force 25 years ago.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board director told us that to do things properly, time would be required for hiring and training. I believe that our amendment NDP‑10 proposes an improvement. People told us that an 18-month wait before coming into force was too long and that it should be shortened. We are also, however, aware of realities. We want the bill to meet expectations and to be enforced. It has to be done well. It has to be implemented pragmatically and realistically.

I feel that reducing the length of time before the bill comes into force by six months is a major improvement.

We are therefore proposing a 12-month period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any discussion on NDP-10?

Go ahead, Madame Chabot.

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

Mr. Chair, I disagree.

I get the impression I'm listening to the CIRB arguments. I'm not saying that they aren't cogent, but that's all about means rather than the importance of fairness for workers in the short term.

It's true that it has to be done properly, but nothing can justify such a lengthy wait if the intent is really to help them. Workers didn't come here to ask for the 18 months to be reduced to 12 months or nine months. If you check back on the testimony from most of the unions, you may find one that proposed a 12-month period. However, most of the unions in the field that are directly experiencing the harmful impact of the current situation asked us to shorten it to allow the bill to come into force immediately upon royal assent. I still don't understand how reducing the period from 18 months to 12 months is an improvement.

I will therefore vote against this amendment, and I believe I'm speaking on behalf of most of the workers we've heard from. They came to tell us that nothing could justify a waiting period before allowing workers to fully exercise their rights in their labour disputes, which they also don't want. Indeed, negotiating a labour contract is always the best way to settle a strike or a lockout.

Nevertheless, this bill does indeed represent a major step forward. I am in agreement with my colleague to some extent; a bill like this should have come into force in 1977. We in the Bloc Québécois have been calling for it since 1990. I don't know how many bills have been introduced on this by the NDP, but in our case, it's 11. We now have a bill that has been favourably received by everyone, but it still needs some teeth, by which I mean having it come into force as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.