44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/14/23 4:07:18 p.m.
- Watch
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.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:08:37 p.m.
- Watch
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.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:09:39 p.m.
- Watch
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.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:10:44 p.m.
- Watch
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.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:11:35 p.m.
- Watch
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.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:12:14 p.m.
- Watch
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.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:12:51 p.m.
- Watch
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.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:20:52 p.m.
- Watch
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.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:21:36 p.m.
- Watch
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.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:22:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we remember the brutal 2011 Vale strike in Sudbury. Stephen Harper and Tony Clement allowed Inco and Falconbridge, two world-class mining companies, to be taken over by the corporate raider, Glencore. Then, Vale came in to try to break the back of the working class in Sudbury. Workers were out for over a year. It caused huge damage to the community, but people stood up, resisted and fought for better wages. I want to ask the member, who was in Sudbury at the time, about the damaging impacts of these kinds of strikes and the need to make sure we have rules in place so workers can negotiate fair agreements with their employers.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:23:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly was in Sudbury during that strike, and I will tell members that the legacy of it still haunts Sudburians to this day, as well as people from across northern Ontario. We had colleagues in dispute with one another, and neighbours arguing with each other. We talk about a poisoned work environment; after the strike, when workers returned, the relationship with Vale was not in any way in a healthy state, because of what went on for over a year. We saw families being impoverished. We saw their homes being put in jeopardy. Luckily, there were local bank branches that helped people to be able to still afford the payments they needed to make. It was difficult on the community of Sudbury. It is something that we still feel today. That is why the legislation is so very important: to avoid having that kind of situation ever happen again.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:24:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether my hon. colleague could comment on the rationale of the government for the 18-month implementation date for the legislation, and why the government would preclude the largest employer group, the federal public service, from being part of it.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:24:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, this is probably the largest legislation that we have seen in decades.
We need to make sure that we get it right. This would be, indeed, one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen. We need to give all parties time to prepare. That is the reason why it would only come into force 18 months after it receives royal assent, to give employers, unions and the Canada Industrial Relations Board time to adapt to their new requirements and their obligations. This is significant. If we are going to be successful in its execution, we need to make sure that we give all those parties the time that they need.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.
I will read the summary of this bill, because I think it is important. The bill has the following objectives:
(a) amend the scope of the prohibition relating to replacement workers by removing the requirement of demonstrating a purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity, by adding persons whose services must not be used during legal strikes and lockouts and by providing certain exceptions;
(b) prohibit employers from using, during a legal strike or lockout intended to involve the cessation of work by all employees in a bargaining unit, the services of an employee in that unit, subject to certain exceptions;
(c) make the contravention by employers of either of those prohibitions an offence punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 per day;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing an administrative monetary penalties scheme for the purpose of promoting compliance with those prohibitions; and
(e) amend the maintenance of activities process in order to, among other things, encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout, encourage faster decision making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when parties are unable to agree and reduce the need for the Minister of Labour to make referrals to the Board.
This bill gives me the opportunity to talk about what is unfortunately wrong with Canada right now, about public trust in this government and about how the government is turning its back on Canadian workers. We agree that Canadian workers need to be protected, of course, but unfortunately, this government is incapable of doing so. There is a lot of evidence to prove it. This government says it will be able to implement this bill in 18 months, as set out in the bill. We do not believe that. We are convinced that, unfortunately, the government has no intention of implementing this bill.
We have seen proof of this on several occasions in the past. Unfortunately, this government has failed to keep a number of promises. Just look at the first promise made in 2015 to run three small deficits before returning to a balanced budget. Unfortunately, there is now an additional deficit of $600 billion compared to the deficit before this Prime Minister took office. Unfortunately, we do not believe that the government will keep that promise.
As many of my colleagues have mentioned, this type of legislation has existed in Quebec for nearly 50 years and it did not take 18 months for it to come into force. From the moment it was passed, it was brought into force. The government always gives itself extensions. It gives itself room to manoeuvre. In any case, an election will be called in 18 to 24 months. Even if the bill is passed tomorrow morning, which it will not, it would not likely come into force before the next government is elected. That is proof that this government is incapable of protecting Canadian jobs.
We saw it with Volkswagen. I mentioned it to my colleague earlier when I asked her a question. Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt are going to set up plants in various regions of Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. They are going to bring in temporary foreign workers to set up those plants. However, despite all the motions that we moved at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we still have not been told how long those people will be working here for.
We realize that they are not coming to build the plants. They are coming to set up the technology. What I do not understand and have never understood is why we cannot hire Canadians and send them to South Korea, rather than bringing workers from South Korea to Canada. The South Korean ambassador went to see Windsor's police chief to ask him to find space to house 1,800 employees. They are not coming here to clean. They are coming to work and take jobs away from Canadian workers.
That is unfortunate, but that is how it is. We have seen the same thing in other situations. The same thing is going to happen with Northvolt in Quebec. It is a plant that will be partly set up in the riding of the leader of the Bloc Québécois. We really need to think about these projects. These businesses are going to get nearly $50 billion in subsidies, which will serve in part to pay the temporary foreign workers who will spend some time here and then go home. The thing is, we do not know how long they will be here.
This bill will probably not change anything. My colleague mentioned that, in fact. This will not change anything, so—
841 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:30:41 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:30:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the workers who will be brought in to set up the battery plant are not scab labour. They are not replacement workers. The member needs to understand—
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:30:55 p.m.
- Watch
That is debate and perhaps a point that could be made during questions and comments.
The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière‑du‑Loup.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:31:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to tell my colleague from Timmins—James Bay that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was told that replacement workers would be brought to Canada. Moreover, on the Government of Canada website, jobs are already being posted for Korean-speaking temporary foreign workers to come here. I do not know how many people in Windsor speak Korean, but one thing is certain: This is going to take jobs away from Canadians.
I am a business owner myself. The decision to build a factory is not made overnight. It takes years of planning. That means it is possible to make a plan to hire Canadians and send them to South Korea for training on how to set up a plant. That has not happened. Instead, people are being brought in from Korea, and people from Sweden are going to be brought in to work at Northvolt. This is not the right way to develop employability in Canada. I will leave it at that for now, but one thing is for sure: When Canadian families pay their taxes next year, they will realize that $1,000 of that money is going to fund these foreign workers. That $50 billion or $45 billion-plus is the equivalent of $1,000 or more, adding up to nearly $4,000 per family for the next 10 years. Obviously, we cannot spend money and give subsidies to make batteries that, unfortunately, will be manufactured by temporary foreign workers. It is really not good for Canada. Everyone agrees with that.
Here is another example. An electrode quality engineer position is currently being advertised, and applicants who are fluently bilingual in English and Korean are preferred. Once again, I am not sure how many Korean workers would qualify for this position in the Windsor region. I think it would have been much better if Canada had hired Canadian workers and sent them to South Korea for training so that they could learn to set up the battery plants in question.
I would also like to briefly mention that members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology asked to see the controversial Stellantis, Northvolt and Volkswagen battery plant contracts. We saw the Volkswagen contract, but in a way—
383 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:33:46 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
