44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the speech I started the day before yesterday to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-58. For the first time, the federal government is proposing anti-scab legislation for all workers governed by the Canada Labour Code, so, workers under federal jurisdiction, who represent 10% of the country's labour force.
This is a very important debate. This bill is important because it is historic. For generations, labour activists who support workers' rights have been fighting to have the government uphold workers' fundamental right to strike, to ensure that during a labour dispute employers can no longer use replacement workers, to use the polite term, or scabs, to put it bluntly.
This is a big day. We need to emphasize the importance of the step that is being taken today. We will continue to exert pressure so that this bill is improved in committee and passed. Obviously, some aspects of the bill need to be improved, but the fact that the government has introduced such a bill for the first time in history is a good sign.
Over the years, the NDP has introduced a number of anti-scab bills, nine of them, I think, in the past 10 or 12 years. I introduced a bill last year to give the Liberal government a helping hand and point it in the right direction. We managed to hold discussions and make some progress. Today, we have something interesting to look at.
It could make a huge difference for tens of thousands of people. We wish this legislation had come along sooner, because people are suffering now without it. We want to fix the problem so that painful situations like these never happen again.
I get pretty disheartened when organizations like the Conseil du patronat du Québec, Quebec's council of employers, tell us that this bill is not relevant or necessary right now. There are still people on picket lines or locked out who see replacement workers take their place during a labour dispute. That was the case until very recently. It has psychological consequences for workers and it impacts the balance of power between management and unions. It also has very serious and significant consequences for families going through extremely tense times.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec says this is not relevant or timely, but that is simply not the case. Just think about Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy, which was in a labour dispute two years ago, if memory serves me correctly. The workers were replaced by scabs. A small team of 12 or 14 employees was replaced. It took longer and it was more difficult to resolve the problem because replacement workers were brought in.
Let us also not forget the longshore workers at the Port of Québec, who have been locked out for 14 months now. They were kicked out by their own employer, who refused to negotiate in good faith. Because of the lack of legislative measures in the Canada Labour Code, employers can hire replacement workers or scabs. This means that, for the past 14 months, 81 longshore workers have seen people take their place every day on the job site, even though those folks do not have the necessary skills, cause a bunch of accidents and destroy equipment.
It upsets the balance of power and undermines the possibility of reaching a reasonable settlement that works for both parties when replacement workers are given the job and perform the tasks of workers who are out on strike or, in the case of the Quebec longshore workers, are locked out. It is even worse in this case, because this was not their choice. Workers just want decent working conditions. In this case, it is not even about money. It is more about work-life balance and having more humane working hours.
This is happening now. We are not talking about 50 years ago, we are not talking about Murdochville, we are not talking about past battles. We are talking about what is happening right now, today. The situation with the longshore workers at the Port de Québec is tough. It is not the only one and may not be the last, unfortunately.
Now there is a dispute at Videotron, in Gatineau. Again, this is a federally regulated sector. We talked about sports. We could also talk about airports or the rail sector. Here we are talking about telecommunications, another federally regulated sector. It is possible that replacement workers are taking the jobs of the unionized workers in Videotron's west sector, in Gatineau. This would make it much harder to reach a settlement, to get a good contract for the employees.
I want to come back to the example of Videotron because it is an interesting one. Videotron is owned by Pierre Karl Péladeau, who is proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the legislative advances made by his province. Quebec was the first province to implement anti-scab legislation in 1977. British Columbia followed suit several years later. If Pierre Karl Péladeau respects the spirit of the law in Quebec, then he should not use replacement workers in his own company. We will see what happens with Videotron in Gatineau, but I want to make it clear that when workers organize to collectively defend their rights and improve their working conditions, which is well within their rights to do, there has to be a balance of power. For years, that balance of power did not exist. For example, unions were prohibited in Canada until 1872. They were illegal.
It was a crime to collectively organize in order to defend a group's rights and try to improve pay or work organization. It really is thanks to the work of generations of union activists that we have been able to achieve better working conditions. In fact, if we look closely, we realize that before unions emerged and took action, spearheading major battles, there really was no middle class. There were extremely rich owners and extremely poor workers. The workers merely survived, trying to work hard and provide for their children so that these children could take their place in the factory and continue to ensure profits and added value for the owners of the means of production.
It took the courage and action of generations of workers, men and women, who stood up and decided that they had to fight together to lift themselves out of misery and poverty, to get good paycheques, good working conditions and benefits. In fact, the union movement created the middle class. There was no middle class before. It did not exist. In the 19th century there was no middle class. People were either very rich or very poor. Workers struggled to survive under horrific health and safety conditions.
The goal was to establish a balance of power at the bargaining table and negotiate with management, with the employer, to tell them that workers wanted their share of the profits and to live with dignity. There would be no profits without all these workers doing their jobs in factories to produce the goods and services sold. This was how the middle class got its start and managed to rise above poverty and misery. Finally, middle class workers could buy a house, have a pension, look forward to retirement and get insurance and benefits.
That is how we were able to create a middle class in Quebec and Canada, as well as in the United States, of course, France and England.
The problem with not having anti-scab legislation is that the balance of power at the bargaining table is completely undermined. Going on strike essentially sends a message to the employer that production is being halted and that there will be an economic impact arising from this work stoppage, since the product can no longer be sold on the market. If production continues because replacement workers can be hired to keep doing the work, the balance of power at the bargaining table has just been destroyed. It is all well and good for the employer to say that employees can go on strike for as long as they like and that it is not the employer's problem, because, in any case, production and service will continue, the employer will continue to make money, revenue will come in, and there is no problem.
This destroys the workers' bargaining power and drags out the labour disputes. The employer has no incentive to reach an agreement with the union to provide good or acceptable working conditions to its workers. This also creates more tension, which can lead to violence. Imagine being a worker on the picket line every morning who sees someone go in to take their place, their salary and keep the business in operation. Frustration and anger run high. In the past we have seen violent acts and interpersonal conflicts that are totally understandable.
That is why, for hundreds of thousands of workers at the federal level, it is important to have this legislation that will simply provide balance at the bargaining table. Such legislation has existed in Quebec since 1977 in every sector in Quebec, of which there are very many. We are talking about 90% of the labour force. This also exists in British Columbia and the sky has not fallen. Economic development has carried on. In fact, the labour disputes have been fewer, shorter and less violent. That is good for everyone.
Some members of the House use the term “common sense” a lot. I think that anti-scab legislation is just common sense. We are not trying to dictate what workers' wages, working conditions or contracts will look like. We just want to give workers a chance to exercise their constitutional rights and to be in a position where they can use their balance of power, have a say at the bargaining table and negotiate a good employment contract.
I began working as a union representative for the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 2002. Two weeks later, the labour dispute at Videotron began. What I saw 20 years ago is the impact of the employer being able to use replacement workers, or scabs, and just how much that served to prolong the dispute. I was happy to be working with that union, but it was a long, hard battle. In the end, the union was successful. The technicians stayed in the union. However, it is important to avoid this type of situation in the future, like the situations at the Port of Québec and Videotron in Gatineau right now. We must ensure that there is an equal balance of power. It is a matter of fairness. We are not trying to favour one side over the other. These are fundamental rights that must be defended.
I am extremely proud of the fact that the NDP leveraged its strength in Parliament to help workers. I was talking about balance of power at the bargaining table, but we used our balance of power in Parliament. From the very beginning of talks on the agreement we have with the minority Liberal government, the leader of the NDP made it clear that this was an essential condition. After years of struggle, we absolutely had to have anti-scab legislation at the federal level.
I think this is an extremely important step. This direct gain is attributable to the work of the NDP caucus, my NDP colleagues and the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South. He forced the Liberals to introduce anti-scab legislation even though the Liberals have always been against it. Every time we introduced anti-scab legislation, the Liberals voted against it. I think they have seen the light, but I also think they did not have much choice. We twisted their arm a bit and, in the end, thanks to the influence of the NDP caucus and all my colleagues, we are going to get it done.
However, some obstacles remain and some aspects of the bill require improvement. My colleagues and I look forward to sending the bill to committee for improvement. One rather major obstacle right now is the time it will take to implement the bill. A second reading, a review in committee and a third reading will take time. After that the Senate will also be doing its part.
The bill states that its implementation will take 18 months. This is a major irritant for the NDP. Eighteen months is far too long. We fail to understand why it would take that long for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to adjust to the new legislative measure. We think that it might take 12 months or maybe even six months. We will therefore be applying pressure in committee to shorten the implementation time provided for this bill in light of its importance and urgency to a number of sectors of our economy. It will open the door to good working conditions for the people we represent, make room for good employment contracts and good salaries, and improve the situation of just about everyone in the country.
I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.
2226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 10:26:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a huge difference between back-to-work legislation and anti-scab legislation. I am happy that my colleague rectified his wording at the end of his question.
Reducing the number of labour disputes has helped a lot in Quebec and British Columbia. It has been good for everyone: employees, employers and society in general. The vast majority of collective agreements—97% or 98%, I believe—are resolved without a labour dispute, strike or lockout.
Experience has taught us that, when there is a labour dispute in Quebec or British Columbia, the average time it takes to resolve it is less than when replacement workers or scabs are involved. That is good news for everyone. Quebec paved the way and British Columbia followed.
I think it is now time for the federal government to set an example and ensure that we have anti-scab legislation that will make a difference for all of society, reduce tensions and reduce the duration of labour disputes in our country. I think that is good news for everyone.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 10:27:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is such an important bill that will help workers across the country and help all communities across the country. As he mentioned, it has been an NDP issue for many years. I remember one of the first private member's bills I saw tabled in this House was from my former colleague Karine Trudel, who tabled very similar anti-scab legislation. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against it. However, I am so proud that we have used our power in this Parliament to bring it forward again through the government legislation we see here today.
The hon. member touched on the conflict that replacement workers often cause in communities, especially small communities, where there may not be many jobs available so there is a lot of pressure to take on replacement worker status. That conflict can often escalate into violence, as he mentioned. One of the classic examples is the Giant Mine strike of 1992, which resulted in one of the worst mass murders, I would say, in Canadian history. That conflict escalated and escalated, and eventually someone set off a bomb in the mine, killing workers.
I am wondering if he could comment on the effect that this bill would have on communities across the country.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:18:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I trade barbs back and forth, in good nature, with the member for Winnipeg North all the time. I will point out to him, though, that in his speech he talked about how replacement workers were a cause of the 1919 strike. The Canadian Labour Congress website has no mention of replacement workers. What it does state is that a big cause of the strike was inflation.
I am wondering if the member could tell the House how much the Liberal-induced inflation right now is causing the need for the legislation he is promoting.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:19:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if the member were to peruse Hansard to see exactly what I said, I said “in good part” replacement workers were the reason for the 1919 strike, especially the conclusion of it. A number of factors led to it, and in good part, it was about employers and a sense of exploitation at a time when there was inflation.
The member tries to compare it to today. It is important that we put things into proper perspective in the sense that, around the world, Canada's inflation rate is doing quite well in comparison. Having said that, we are moving in the right direction. In June 2022, it was over 8%. Now we are getting closer to 3%. We are moving in the right direction and we will continue to have Canadians' backs.
The other thing I would emphasize, based on the question the member asked, is in regard to Canada's middle class. Canada's middle class has been supported, whether through this legislation or middle-class tax breaks from the very beginning. People in the middle class know that this government has their backs in all ways.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:21:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when Labour Day comes every year, I am part of the millions of Canadians who really think about what it means and what the hard-fought labour rights represent. How can this legislation further protect the sacred right to strike in this nation?
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:33:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for me, this is a really important bill, and one that the NDP really fought hard for. We have been fighting for anti-scab legislation for an extremely long time.
I think about the times that I have stood on picket lines. If one is from a rural and remote community, sometimes it takes a while to get to that picket line, because people live in very isolated places. I remember having a conversation with one gentleman in particular who talked about the fact that, when they were on strike, the company took away their health benefits. He and his spouse had adopted a couple of kids and were planning to adopt a third, they were in the process, but they could not because of the strike. The bill before us would fundamentally give those folks, those workers, more power in the negotiating process. I wonder if the member could speak to why that is important.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:34:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that Canadians do not have the right to strike. We are saying that every person needs to have a right to live. One of the problems with the government is that it is not giving that ability to Canadians to make a financial benefit to themselves. With all the policies that are happening right now, taxes continuing to rise and the carbon tax taking away from their income is the bigger problem. With the cost of food and everything else going up, this is why the Liberals are bringing in this type of legislation.
It is not about trying to protect workers. It is about trying to protect Canadians to live and have a quality of life. This is why the bill has some issues with it, which need to be dealt with.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:48:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, I got the impression that he was saying that his party would agree to anti-scab legislation as long as there are enough exceptions so that this law, if applied, would not restrict employers too much. He says there should be exceptions so that, as soon as a strike causes the slightest inconvenience, the employer can use replacement workers. Generally speaking, an employer does not give a hoot about the consequences for employees when locking them out.
I want to know from the outset whether my colleague agrees that, when there is a strike, it is somewhat normal for the employer to suffer at least some consequences.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-58, a very important piece of legislation. It was a commitment made by both the Liberals and the NDP in the last election, something we have been able to work together on in order to bring forward legislation to the House so we could provide a better environment for workers to be able to negotiate new contracts or re-negotiate existing contracts with employers. That is what the bill seeks to do.
We know that when there are individuals who want to go on strike, they are usually doing it for a fairly important reason. They are sometimes doing it because their wages are not reflecting the reality of what they believe they should be paid. They are doing it because they are worried about the conditions in which they are working. They are doing it because they are worried about job security and what their employers are providing for them.
We know that when they do make the decision to go on strike, which does and, quite frankly, should happen from time to time in order to properly demonstrate the need and the requirement to change working conditions, it has to be taken very seriously.
The employer's having the opportunity to bring in scab labour, replacement workers who are there while negotiating, significantly takes away from the employer's ability to negotiate in good faith. Think about that for a second. What if someone were on the management side of a firm and had to negotiate, and the only thing being held against them was the ability of people to strike? What if, at the same time, they had the opportunity to bring people in to replace the workers while management was in the process of negotiating with the striking employees? Management would not face the same realities that those who are on strike would.
When a union decides to go on strike, extreme hardships can be felt by the employees. They are not paid anymore. Sometimes they are given small stipends from their union, but it is nowhere near what they would be making normally. They are taking on hardships in order to stand up for their rights. If an employer has the opportunity to negotiate while having replacement or scab labour in place, they are going to be negotiating from a much more comfortable position in terms of their ability to continue to function. While employees have the hardships imposed upon them through either a strike or a lockout, in the same vein, we have to make sure that the negotiating position is balanced. That is done by ensuring that employers have to feel the same kind of pain, for lack of a better expression. They have to be faced with the same reality that if they do not get to a deal quickly, they cannot continue to function in their business in the manufacturing sector or whatever it might be. As a result, they have to be motivated.
We know that the best deals are those that are made at the bargaining table. We know that when we can encourage, through various different pieces of legislation, both sides to sit down and work out a deal, it will produce the best result for everybody. It can be a messy process, and we have seen that time and time again through the history of this country, in terms of organized labour. It can be messy when people are striking. Just yesterday, I was driving through Quebec and saw a number of people protesting in a strike that was ongoing there.
This is part of the process. It is about bringing to the attention of the employer that there is a significant need for the employee that is not being addressed by the employer. That is why the best deals are those that are made at the table by bringing the two parties together to be able to do that. That is why the legislation before us would specifically prohibit employers from using the following workers from doing the work of striking or locked out employees: first, new hires, such as employees and managers hired after notice to bargain collectively is given; and, second, contractors, regardless of when they were hired.
The bill also seeks to prohibit employers from using the services of employees in a bargaining unit when that bargaining unit is in a full strike or lockout where all employees in the unit are expected to stop working. I think this is really important, because a union's strength is in its unity and membership. Unions operate in a democratic fashion. They elect their leadership, which is there to represent them; it is critically important to ensure that some who might not have voted in favour are still subject to the leadership that they have democratically elected. I can see how it might be tempting otherwise for individuals to do this, but again, at the end of the day, we know that the best deals are those that are made at the table and not by the influences that come from using outside forms of labour in the meantime. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. I will not get into detail, but they relate primarily to health and safety and environmental impacts on the property of the employer.
However, this bill also seeks to ensure that, if unions believe that an employer is violating a ban, they may complain to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This is an independent administrative tribunal whose job is to resolve workplace disputes and certain appeals that arise under the Criminal Code, among other acts. The board can investigate, and if it agrees with the complaint, order the employer to stop the violation. It is also really important that a hefty fine comes along with this to further discourage the employer from moving toward this kind of action. It sets out a maximum fine of $100,000 per day if the employer is prosecuted and convicted of violating the prohibition. Members can see that the intent of the bill is really to put as many measures in place to prevent these activities of employing scab or replacement workers for the purposes of, once again, ensuring that people get to the bargaining table and having meaningful discussions there.
One other thing I want to address, and perhaps I pre-empt a question from my NDP colleagues, is that NDP members have been steadfast in their support for the bill. However, they have said that they forced the government to do this; I do not quite look at it like that. We did run on this. It is on page 22 of our last election platform, but it may have been slightly different. We may have worked on this in a way with the NDP to make the bill even stronger, which is great. That is what this entire process is about. Our Westminster parliamentary system is based on the idea that, if one party does not form a majority, we work with other political parties to develop strategies and policies that we can bring forward on behalf of the Canadian people, in our case anyhow. That is what we are seeing.
Therefore, I think that the NDP should rightfully take credit for some of this, as they have done good work on it. I also think that the government has done extremely good work on it, and the Liberal Party has been committed to it as well. I hear that call from the NDP, but I respectfully disagree that it was forced. Nobody forced anybody to do anything. This was one of the terms of that agreement that we came to in order to work together in a productive manner.
To that end, I am very glad that there is another political party in this room made up of adults, when it comes to doing meaningful things for the people we represent. I would say two, one of which is the Bloc. It is not always just about saying no, because the objective is to be an obstructionist at any cost. The objective is genuine in this agreement. I quite often see a genuine objective from the Bloc as well to advance better policy, ideas and legislation for the people we individually represent.
However, I am very concerned, once again, about the lack of clarity on this issue from my colleagues on the other side of the House, the Conservatives. They have given a couple of speeches on this. They were asked a direct question just moments ago by my NDP colleague about whether they will support the bill. They skate around it, they do not answer, they give vague statements, they are not concrete on it and they will not even say that they will support the bill to get to committee, which is just an initial step.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: They are heckling me now.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will not even say that they will support it just to get it to committee where they want to do this work. We heard the member for Edmonton Manning say that just moments ago. They want to have a thorough discussion and thorough examination; a lot of that happens at committee.
Will they support getting it to committee? I raise this because it is an important observation. We have seen this happen a couple times now with the Conservatives, especially since September, where they are very non-committal on an issue. When they do get up and speak about it, like the bill we were debating yesterday, they do not even mention the issue at hand. Thankfully, they are at least talking about workers in this context. What do they do next? They vote against it.
Where did we see that recently? With the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The Conservatives never committed, in all the speeches that they gave in this House, to what their position was. Then one by one, they stood up and voted against Ukraine and showed exactly who they were. They are not going to get away with that. The Canadian people are going to know how they voted and the Canadian people do know.
In the news cycle yesterday, there was a lot of talk about the Leader of the Opposition, his right-wing politics and where he is going, where he is taking this party, by even some of the most Conservative pundits out there who write opinion pieces on the position of the Conservative Party. There is this fake notion of a price on pollution, when it clearly states in the agreement that no particular country's environmental policies can impact another country. They look for these red herrings to be able to do this.
We did not let them get away with that. If the Conservatives' plan again this time is to just skate around the issue of workers, stand up and say that they support workers, that they are there with workers until the end and that they will always support workers, but then turn around and vote for it when it is time to vote, we are going to report that back to Canadians. I am sure my colleagues in the NDP are going to help us do that.
Canadians deserve to know where the Conservatives stand. When they get up in this House and talk about an issue, they need to be able to say they support it or they do not support it. They cannot any longer get away with the rhetoric we hear from across the way and the approach they have been taking.
I am very happy to tell members that I will be supporting this. I want to see this go to committee. I know there have already been a couple issues brought up, I think, in good faith, that can be discussed at committee. The committee can look into the issue to make even better legislation. The idea that we are going to be able to just stand up and talk about how amazing Conservatives have been for workers when the record does not come anywhere near to reflecting that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I do not know why they would clap for that.
Mr. Speaker, their record is not anywhere near reflective of that. The reality is that the vast majority of Canadians know that Conservatives do not support workers. They support big corporations and that has always been their MO. They come from the position of trickle-down economics from the Ronald Reagan era. As long as they make things better for the most wealthy, as long as they make things better for the corporations and as long as they strip more taxes from corporations, they swear it is going to trickle down to the workers. Workers are going to be impacted by that and they will be so much better off as a result.
We know that Reagan economics failed. We know that it has only, over the last several decades, contributed to a wider gap between the haves and the have-nots. That is why we need meaningful legislation, like we have before us today, that will force the employer to come to the bargaining table under the same conditions as the employee, which is the condition of fighting for their job, for job security, for fair wages and for benefits from their employer. Just like we expect an employee to do that, we need to expect the employer is going to come with the same restrictions and the same hardships associated to them if they do not negotiate in good faith.
I am glad to see this legislation has come forward. I am really happy we are able to work with our colleagues in the NDP to make this a reality. I am going to cut my comments off there because I think that will give more time to one of my NDP colleagues later down the road.
2356 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 1:11:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking so much about the Liberal platform commitment on anti-scab legislation. What is important to note, but I did not hear the member say, is that the commitment was to legislate against scabs in the case of a lockout. Therefore, it was not actually about protecting the right to strike, which is fundamental to workers' being able to bring home more powerful paycheques; it was about slapping employers on the wrist if they lock workers out.
However, we know that if we really want to take anti-scab legislation seriously and we want to defend the right to collective bargaining, workers themselves should be able to go out on strike to fight for better wages and enjoy that protection. Therefore, I am very glad that the NDP was able to bring that and push the government to do that.
I also heard the member talk about trickle-down economics. I agree with his analysis. Does that mean he would be willing to raise the corporate tax rate by a percentage point to triple the government's investment in affordable housing initiatives and make them happen now instead of two years from now?
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
