Debates of Dec. 14th, 2023

Canada Labour Code

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy holiday and a good vacation to everyone in the House, but mostly to the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, who have worked so hard over the past year. I hope they get time with their loved ones. I wish the same for my colleague who just made his speech, because I know him well enough to wish him a merry Christmas.

If we know each other well enough to wish each other a merry Christmas, I imagine we know each other well enough to provide really good, accurate answers. That is the gift I want this holiday season. I would like for him to explain, in all honesty and frankness, the rationale behind this 18-month delay. Quebec has had equivalent legislation for 47 years, which means that workers' rights are not equal. It works very well in Quebec.

How is it that the government ends up introducing this bill after years of promises and then imposes an 18-month delay before it comes into force? I would like a real answer.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and wish him a merry Christmas as well.

The period of 18 months is there because we have a proud history of tripartism in this country, bringing employers, workers and the government together to make sure we get the balance right. It is in that spirit that we are giving all the parties time to prepare and because there are the most significant changes that Canada has ever seen and that we all agree on in federal collective bargaining, it cannot be rushed.

In particular, the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs time to build capacity and work closely with employers and unions on the implementation of these changes. When the bill comes into force, the following 18 months, as the member knows, will give the parties the time to adapt to the new requirements and obligations that this country has not seen before.

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

Madam Speaker, in my friend's comments, he referred to other pieces of legislation the Liberals overturned that Stephen Harper had put in place. When I look at this anti-scab legislation, it was part of the election platform that the member and I ran on. I am quite happy with the legislation.

I posed this question to other opposition members. We know the Bloc and the NDP are supporting it. We are not sure what the Conservatives are going to do as of yet, though they say they are for workers. Would it not be wonderful thing for the debate to collapse so that the bill could go to committee before Christmas and a wonderful gesture for the union movement in Canada?

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

I wish a merry Christmas to all my constituents.

Those two pieces of legislation made it very difficult for unions to operate. It made it difficult to certify their members, easy to decertify them and tried to bury them in red tape. I was pleased to run under that banner and run again when we put pro-union and pro-worker legislation in our platform. This is a promise made and a promise kept.

[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—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have yet to hear about what is good or bad about the bill, so if he could get on with the point.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows there is a lot of latitude in how members present their speeches on a bill.

I will let the hon. member pursue.

[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—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I already asked politely. Can he please get to the point and talk about the bill?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member started off his speech by talking to the bill, so I am not going to limit his latitude in discussing the bill within the framework of what we are talking about.

The hon. member may continue.

[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.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to present the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

Canada Labour Code

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

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see the anti-scab legislation. This legislation was promised to Canadians in the Liberal Party's election platform.

I notice the member seemed to take a bit of delight when he was talking about back-to-work legislation. What he did not mention is that provincial NDP governments have also brought in back-to-work legislation, so I do not think it is quite as simple as the member tries to portray it. To the member's disadvantage to a certain degree, I was a parliamentarian in the Manitoba legislature for many years and the NDP did not bring in back-to-work legislation. In fact, as a compromise, it brought in final offer selection.

Would the member agree that it appears we have good support inside the chamber from at least the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals? Conservatives go around the country saying that they support workers. Would it not be a wonderful thing to see this legislation pass to the committee stage? It would make a wonderful statement if that was unanimous. At the end of the day, with Christmas upon us, it would make a powerful statement for our unionized and non-unionized workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for members of the other parties, but we want to see this bill advance through all stages of the House.

I want to remind my hon. colleague that this is an issue the NDP has been fighting for for many years. We have the record to prove it: eight attempts with eight different bills and a united vote by both Liberals and Conservatives in 2016 to squash one of those legislative efforts.

I am not going to interfere with the right of my NDP colleagues who want to speak to this bill at second reading to demonstrate that history and the renewed commitment to workers in federally regulated places. We have their backs and are putting in legislative safeguards so that their collective bargaining rights will not be undermined by scab labour and big powerful corporations.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the past year, I have been visiting work sites throughout the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The Leader of the Opposition has been there, and we have had a great response, whether from the forestry sector, fishers, shipbuilding, welders or trades unions. They want to get pictures. They want to be there. They want to share their concerns.

What concerns union workers the most is the cost of living. I talked to one welder at Seaspan Shipyards who said that he has to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day just to make ends meet. He cannot give his body a rest because of the cost of living caused by the inflationary spending of the Liberal-NDP government.

I wonder if the member would respond to that, the real bread-and-butter issues for workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask where the member has been. We have seen all the evidence of corporations making record profits while workers suffer.

Of course inflation is hurting workers. It is hurting workers in my riding. It is hurting workers from coast to coast to coast. However, we know it is corporate profits driving inflation. Oil and gas profits are up by over 1,000% over the last three years, with crickets from Conservatives. Grocery CEOs are making bonuses and driving their companies to record profits, with crickets from the Conservatives.

I will stand in this place and talk about the cost of living, but unlike my Conservative colleagues, I am going to name the Conservatives who are driving inflation and show the workers in my riding who their actual friend is, not just their perceived friend.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his last answer in which he talked about the crickets we often get from the Conservatives. I find that very interesting and relevant.

I would like him to comment on the 18‑month delay being placed on the bill's coming into force. I do not understand that. We have had similar legislation in Quebec for 47 years. I think we know how this works and we have demonstrated that it would work.

What does my colleague think of that and how does he explain this insistence on imposing an 18‑month delay? This does not make sense to me.

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

Madam Speaker, that is indeed a great question from my hon. colleague, whom I have the pleasure of sitting with on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

All I can say at second reading stage is that this is a debate and vote on the principle of the bill, and that is one provision of the bill that I have personally identified as problematic. That is something I hope my colleagues from all parties who are sitting on committee will take a close, hard look at, because I do not understand why we need that length of time when this issue is so serious and workers need legislative safeguards to make sure they have an even hand with their employers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Housing; the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Housing.

[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.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, given that we both sit on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, my colleague has witnessed conversations that have been had and even motions that have been moved to find out why the government has allowed the use of foreign workers in the battery plants, which are currently under construction and will eventually be operational.

I would like to know from my colleague whether the current bill would have prevented situations like the one about to happen with workers from South Korea, Sweden and other countries coming to work in Canada to replace Canadian workers.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, the unions in Windsor have very clearly told us that this is not the case and that the jobs are going to be offered to Canadians and the citizens of our country.

This bill is important, because it ensures that these parties are focused on the negotiating table. That is how we will regain stability and certainty in our supply chains and throughout our economy.