Debates of May 24th, 2024

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.

Canada Labour Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[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 Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the motion be carried on division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

(Motion agreed to)

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to legislation that is so important to Canada's economy and that would contribute in many different ways. I like to think that at times we get legislation before us that can receive wide support.

It is a issue which, for me on a personal note, I could ultimately go back to when I was first elected in 1988, was probably one of the most substantive issues I had to face in the Manitoba legislature, and it was done in a different form. Labour has always been an important aspect of my political career, as I know it has been for many of my colleagues. I am very proud that we have what I would suggest is a very progressive Prime Minister who understands how important labour is to our country. We have a very proactive Minister of Labour, who has been given a mandate to bring in anti-scab legislation. This is the type of legislation that I have talked about for many years. It is the type of legislation that the Minister of Labour has been talking about for a long time also. It is the type of legislation that when we were in opposition, we often saw private members' bills from the Conservative Party, which we were in opposition to because they were “anti-union organizing” pieces of legislation.

Therefore, it would appear, based on second reading and from what I have been hearing from other members in the chamber, that there is a very good chance that this legislation will pass unanimously. I really and truly hope that it does because it sends a very powerful message to all Canadians in terms of the important role unions play in today's society and the importance of having labour harmony in Canada, and in terms of how this legislation can have a positive impact.

I would encourage members to look at, for example, anti-replacement workers or anti-scab legislation that was brought in first in the province of Quebec. The next province that brought it in was British Columbia. I would argue, and many in this chamber would no doubt add their voices to it, that through the legislation, we saw more harmony in the workforce. Ultimately, I believe that the type of legislation being proposed and the expectation that it will receive widespread support, is really encouraging, and we should not be taking it for granted because as a political issue, as I say, it has been with me for many years. I will reflect on that just to give people a sense of how controversial it could be.

My home province of Manitoba is an important part of Canada's labour history. Before I go on to my specific case, just so that people following the debate today will realize, in labour history in Canada, one of the major protests we saw at the very beginning would have been with George Brown, who was the founder of The Globe and Mail and who organized and played an important role in terms of printing-press people, where there was a significant rally in front of the Ontario legislature in Toronto.

Fast forward to the one I often talk about, and that is the Winnipeg general 1919 strike, which is embedded in the minds of many, even non-union members. I often look at the Winnipeg Free Press, and one of the pages and pictures that it continually reprints is the trolley car that was turned over during the 1919 strike on Bloody Saturday, which has had an impact on the labour movement here in Canada.

In fact, on the 100th anniversary of the 1919 general strike, we contributed, as a House of Commons, to a trolley replica. It was put just outside of Pantages and across the street from the city hall so that people walking by get a sense of what had taken place because it stands out there, and they have to wonder why that is there. It is connected to something that the Winnipeg Free Press publishes on a regular basis about that trolley car.

That sculpture is very symbolic for the city of Winnipeg and even for our country, because through that strike that took place and through organized labour at the time, in the area I represent, with the Ukrainian Labour Temple, in the traditional north end of Winnipeg on McGregor Street, the organizers would often be in different areas, particularly in the north end of Winnipeg, organizing that strike.

We found that even though there were some low points where workers were hurt, maimed and killed, I took away, from that particular strike, that labour was not just concerned about the working conditions that people found themselves in. From my perspective, it took on a social movement of sorts. It was not just about working x number of hours and getting paid x amount of money, but also about the way of life and how people, particularly people with smaller incomes, were being exploited and were being taken advantage of. There was a role for unions at the time, not only to advocate for those wages and working conditions, but also to often reflect on social programming.

When I look at Winnipeg, I think it is a good example of what took place and the labour movement ever since. In 1988, when I was first elected, we had this thing called final offer selection, and at the time, it was being debated. The Progressive Conservative Party opposed the legislation, and the NDP supported the legislation but was not prepared to accept any amendments to the legislation. At the time, we were the official opposition to the Liberal Party. We wanted to maintain the legislation, and we were prepared to accept an amendment if the Conservatives would allow the legislation to survive.

We sat for many hours, late into the evening, on committees and heard from many different unions on a wide spectrum of issues. To get the final offer selection, it was actually fought for; it was a compromise. Final offer selection was brought in by Howard Pawley, the NDP Premier, as a compromise, because in the election prior, Howard Pawley had actually promised to bring in anti-scab legislation. Manitoba was going to have anti-scab legislation, but because of the resistance, the NDP at the time decided not to bring in replacement worker legislation; as a compromise, it brought in the final offer selection.

In my first two years as a parliamentarian, in a minority situation, an extensive debate took place. It was like a crash course on the importance of labour, listening to so many representatives from labour and from management, and other stakeholders who came there.

We sat through all sorts of hours of committees and debates that took place. Sadly, final offer selection was killed. I would ultimately argue that it was prematurely killed because the political parties, collectively, could not see the merit in having final offer selection.

For those people who do not necessarily understand what final offer selection is, it provided the union the opportunity to say, “Look, negotiations are not going well, and there's a level of distrust that we cannot overcome”, and then it would request that final offer selection be implemented. Through final offer selection, an arbitrator comes in and says to the union and to the management group, “Give me your best offer.” Ultimately, that is what happens: Both sides present to the arbitrator, and the arbitrator is not allowed to change anything but has to take one over the other with no modifications.

If one were to review Hansard from that time, one would find that this was actually fairly effective. It made both union and management come to the table and give it their best shot, knowing full well that one side was not necessarily going to be overly happy, because the other side was going to be chosen. The argument, in part, at the time was that, over time, it would in fact work out. Final offer selection was used, and I believe it proved to be effective.

However, sadly, because there was no consensus achieved between the political parties, the personalities at the time, we ended up losing final offer selection in Manitoba. In my opinion, that set back labour relations and many of the efforts of unions. I would reflect on this over the years, and if members check, even as a member of Parliament in previous years I have raised the issue of final offer selection, as it was an opportunity that Manitoba lost because there was no political consensus.

Fast-forward to today, when there is a Minister of Labour who has invested so much time and energy with the department and who has come forward with a piece of legislation that is ultimately being supported, from what I understand, by all members of the House of Commons. Through the ideas of whether it is the Prime Minister's bringing it in as part of a platform, to issuing it in the form of a mandate letter to a caucus that truly understands the importance of labour and how it impacts the Canadian economy and society, we had the support to move forward on this substantive issue.

We quickly found out that we expected to receive support from the New Democrats and even the Bloc, because of the history of the Bloc in the province of Quebec, but we were pleasantly surprised that the Conservatives actually supported it going into committee. Some of my colleagues might question the motivation for that, but I am not going to do that. I am going to take it that they actually do support the legislation. I am going to say that the glass is half full, and it is going to be full, because at the end of the day, I really do think it is going to pass with the unanimous support of the House.

I should not take the Green Party for granted. My understanding is that the Green Party, being a progressive party, will hopefully also be endorsing the legislation. I cannot recall offhand what the leader of the Green Party has said.

I see the legislation as a positive thing. I think it sends a powerful message, and other provinces should take note of it. My daughter, who is a provincial MLA in Manitoba, brought it up in Manitoba shortly after we introduced the legislation here. Today I can tell members that the Province of Manitoba seems to be moving forward on the issue of anti-scab legislation, with a huge expectation that we will see that legislation brought into the province of Manitoba.

I think that is a wonderful thing because the federal legislation has limitations in terms of whom it impacts. The ideal situation would be to have provinces throughout the country recognize that not only do the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia have it, but that now we also have leadership coming from Ottawa indicating that Ottawa is moving forward. More importantly, or just as importantly, it appears to be moving forward with the support of all political parties.

When we have had partisan debates in the past, I have not seen the type of support that the legislation before us has actually received, so I want to personally congratulate the Minister of Labour in particular and his team of individuals who were able to do the consultation that was necessary along with the work that is so very important to achieving a consensus. That consensus will in fact benefit all of us.

Not only am I optimistic for the province of Manitoba, but I also believe that there are other provinces that will take note, whether through individual members in other legislatures or political parties as a whole that will recognize that if Ottawa can pass this kind of legislation, then provincial jurisdictions can too. Two provinces have already done so and have had it in place for years.

That is why I believe it is legislation that could really have a positive outcome for us as a nation, because it is about labour harmony. When we talk about building a stronger and healthier economy, about having a sense of fairness, about enhancing the middle class or about investing in solid social programs, whether pensionable programs, health care services or other programs dealing with issues like seniors and people with disabilities, these are issues that the labour movement has been talking about for many, many years, and to which it has contributed in a positive way.

We have pharmacare on our agenda, and I can recall meeting with union reps to talk about the importance of pharmacare. I believe that, at the end of the day, we should take advantage of the consensus that I believe is here on the floor of the House of Commons. We recognize how this type of legislation would help Canada's economy and our society as a whole. I believe that it would have a positive impact on labour here in Canada.

There are lots of details within the legislation. The Minister of Labour has highlighted them. The bill also went through second reading where the details were highlighted. I would require another half an hour or so to go through the details, but I do not want to filibuster the legislation or ask for unanimous consent to have the leave to do so.

I will leave my comments on that positive note. It is great to see members of all political parties unite behind good, solid labour legislation.

[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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a continuation of my speech and in the spirit in which the question was posed, I am going to keep positive, because if we look at Canada's interest rate or its inflation rate, we would find, in comparison to virtually any other country in the world, in particular, let us say, the G7 or G20 countries, Canada is doing exceptionally well. In fact, our inflation rate has dropped to 2.7% and we have been on target for the last four months. Hopefully we will see a decrease in the interest rate.

It is important that in the House of Commons, not only the government should be focused on trying to improve economic conditions. Even though we are doing much better than most of our peers, it is still important that we focus our attention on that rather than on a lot of the other, more negative, aspects of politics that we often witness on the floor of the House of Commons. By doing that, we are helping Canadians.

Hopefully, over the next number of months we can collectively come to an agreement, the inflation rate will remain in the direction it is going and we will see more relief with respect to interest rates, but we have to respect the independence of the Bank of Canada.

[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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we first formed government in 2015-16, we took a number of substantive measures. The first was giving Canada's middle class a tax break. I am sure the member recalls that. It was very well received. Other legislation we brought in took back private members' bills that many had perceived as anti-union bills. That was very well received by the labour movement. We have also been very proactive in terms of providing supports, such things as apprenticeship training, looking at ways to promote and have more harmony within the labour force, and, of course, consultation.

We also have to factor in that there was a worldwide pandemic that had to be dealt with. There were all sorts of things, but even with a very busy legislative agenda over the years, the ministers have in fact been working with labour in particular, and with other stakeholders. It is great that the legislation is at the stage it is, which we should acknowledge, and we have built consensus. Because we did it right, we now have the type of consensus we have today. Hopefully the bill will pass today.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for workers. It is a good day for New Democrats. It is a good day to make certain that unions can participate in making sure workers have powerful paycheques because powerful paycheques come from powerful unions. This is an incredible success and a testament to workers and their exercising of rights across the country.

It is immensely disappointing, though, to know both the Liberals and Conservatives, when New Democrats tabled this bill 15 times, voted against it. It is incredibly important that we acknowledge the hard work of the unions that have been pushing this for generations now. I am proud to be part of a party that forced the government to bring this legislation to a vote. I am proud to be part of a party that is going to ensure unions actually have the power to make sure their material conditions are improved.

Why has it taken the Liberals so long to participate in making sure unions are more powerful?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really encouraging to recognize that, for the first time, we very much have a progressive Prime Minister who understands and appreciates the importance of supporting Canadians and labour. The Prime Minister has not been in government for 15 years. I can understand the frustration. I made reference to Howard Pawley's promise of anti-scab legislation well over 30 years ago, and 30 years ago we could have had final offer selection. We have been waiting for the longest time for that, but because we now have the federal legislation, and because members of all political parties are likely going to be supporting it, Manitoba is likely going to be getting anti-scab legislation.

In other words, let is not necessarily look at patting ourselves on the back, although some might say I have been patting us on the back, too. Let us recognize the union workers and the workers across Canada, even non-union workers, and the many contributions labour has made that go far beyond the working environment and wages and so forth. We can think of the social programs we have today and the contributions the labour movement has had in making those become a reality, as well as the endless lobbying it does. I do thank the New Democrats and others who participated in making today possible.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the trade union movement has played a key role over a period of more than one and a half centuries in improving the working life of workers. The trade union movement has ensured that, as the country has industrialized and developed, the standard of living of all the people in society is good because of the agreements it was able to strike with employers.

This legislation affects federally regulated industry, with over 22,000 employers and about one million employees. I am glad the member talked about his experience in Manitoba when the final offer selection could not go through. He is right that, while it gives benefit to one million employees in the federally regulated sector, much more responsibility is with the provinces. I would like to ask him his opinion or his suggestions on how we can influence provinces to take measures in the same way the federal government is now moving.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing is that the federal government has recognized anti-scab legislation is good legislation. The reason we brought it forward is that it is good for Canada, good for our economy and good for the workers. What is good for workers is good for Canada. That is the most important thing.

The second thing Ottawa can do is what we are doing today. We now appear to have a consensus, where all political entities in the House are going to be voting in favour of that. To me, that sends a very powerful message to all the provinces. The reason I brought up the Manitoba situation is that it was because of political partisanship that Manitoba never had anti-scab legislation. It was because of political partisanship that final offer selection was killed. Here, today, we are demonstrating that, if we put the political partisanship aside, good legislation can pass for the betterment of our country and our workers.

[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.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Conservatives for supporting the bill, which would protect the fundamental rights of workers, and for recognizing the important work that trade unions do in promoting a healthy workplace and the safety of employees.

The federally regulated industries that are covered in the bill affect about 22,000 employers and about one million employees. However, the bulk of the working-class population in Canada works in industries and sectors that are provincially managed. What is the member's suggestion on how we can influence the provinces to adopt the objectives of the bill, so every Canadian worker will get the same benefit?

[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.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, workers at Cascadia Liquor in Victoria, and across Vancouver Island, are on strike for fair wages. Now Cascadia Liquor faces a legal complaint for breaking B.C. law by bringing in replacement workers. New Democrats have been fighting for federal anti-scab legislation for decades, but the truth is that the Conservatives and Liberals voted against it. This happened most recently in 2016, when the NDP brought it forward, but there have been dozens of times.

Conservatives pretend they support workers, but we will not see them on a picket line. New Democrats will keep fighting for workers. I joined Cascadia workers on the picket line last week. I will continue to stand in solidarity with them, because powerful paycheques come from powerful unions.

[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.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot from the illiterate Liberal economic policy on the other side with regard to this and other things.

One thing I find fascinating is that the Liberals take one position but do something else. While they have expressed themselves about the bill, they are allowing foreign replacement workers at the Stellantis plant in Windsor. They are so afraid to prove how they have protected Canadian jobs that they will not release their contracts and prove us wrong. They clearly have not protected these jobs, since we have foreign replacement workers. I have read their contracts.

What is the member's view on foreign replacement workers in relation to the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is a concern. I outlined in some of my intervention here how we brought this up at committee. Unfortunately, the minister was very vague. The information the government had initially given on this was that it is a very small handful of people. We found out that this is factually incorrect.

It is very concerning. If the government does not have anything to hide, then it should absolutely disclose what the arrangements are.