44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and proud to be able to rise in this debate on Bill C-58.
It should go without saying in this country that workers deserve respect, fair wages and safe working conditions. However, success in achieving those things has depended largely on the free collective bargaining process. The success of every business, every enterprise and every government program depends on all the workers involved: Those who clean, those who provide security, those who drive and those who provide child care. None of our economy functions without all of us working together. In fact, I would speculate that if the top CEOs and directors stayed home for a day, their businesses would continue to function, because workers would carry on providing those services to the economy and to the public.
However, we should also recognize today that increasing inequality will eventually undermine social stability in this country. We have had the spectacle of Galen Weston, a CEO, appearing before a House of Commons committee and saying it is “reasonable” that he earns, in one year, 431 times his average worker's salary. I would say to Mr. Weston that it is reasonable only in some other universe than the one the rest of us live in. In fact, it is actually even out of scale for the top 100 CEOs, who only, on average, earn 243 times what their average worker does.
A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives demonstrated to us that, in a typical year, and we have a new year coming up, before the end of the second day, the top 100 CEOs will earn more than their average worker in the entire year. By my own calculations, by the end of that year, the CEOs will have earned more than their average worker will earn in a lifetime. Therefore, we have a serious problem with growing inequality in this country, and one of the only ways that we can, on a practical basis, see progress is through free collective bargaining.
We face huge challenges in our society, and I could spend time talking about the challenge of climate change. We face huge challenges, as I said, in inequality. We face all kinds of challenges in our workforce, with labour shortages. How do we address them? We certainly are a wealthy and well-educated country. We have a dedicated workforce, and if we all work together, and everyone pays their fair share, we can meet those challenges. We know what we need to do.
I would cite the NDP dental care plan as an example of how we can meet the challenges we face. This is a health challenge, in particular, for many seniors I hear from in my riding. They worked very hard all their lives but did not necessarily have a job in which their health benefits continued into retirement, if they had them at all. I have had many people approach my office to say that the quality of their life is really impaired by their inability to afford dental care. How is this relevant? If everybody pays their fair share, we can afford dental care for all Canadians.
Some of my Conservative friends have said, “Well, you always support spending. Why is that? You will just support deficits.” I try to correct them by saying that, as a New Democrat, I do not support deficits; I support fair taxation. If we apply the principles of fair taxation, including a wealth tax in this country, we can afford to take care of each other, which is an important principle.
However, where did that principle of taking care of each other come from? It came from trade unions and collective bargaining, where workers joined together and said, “Let us not have some of us succeed at the cost of the rest of us in the workplace.” They negotiated contracts that provided fair benefits, fair wages and better working conditions for everybody in the bargaining unit, and the employers could not just reward those they favoured in the workplace.
I will tell members a door knocking story from an election campaign. I went out one Saturday morning, too early for me and obviously too early for some of my constituents. A gentleman came to the door and said, “Oh, you're the New Democrat. I can't support you.” I said, “Why can't you?” He said, “You're way too close to the unions.” I said, “What day is it?” He said, “What do you mean, what day is it?” I asked again, “What day is it?” He said, “It's Saturday”, and then he looked at me and said, “I see where you're going with this.” I said, “Yes, you're home on the weekend because collective bargaining got people weekends off, which made it a standard in our society.” He said, “Oh, next you're going to talk to me about health care and all kinds of other things unions got.” I said, “That's absolutely what I'm going to talk to you about.” He said, “I still can't vote for you”, and shut the door. I did not succeed in convincing him that day, but even he understood that a lot of the benefits he enjoyed as a non-union worker came from the work of trade unions.
Why am I giving all these examples when we are talking about anti-scab legislation? We know the importance of collective bargaining. We also know, if we stop to think for a minute, that most collective bargaining processes do not lead to strikes or lockouts; the vast majority of them do not. I have seen various statistics. In some sectors, up to 90% of contracts are completed successfully without any work stoppage at all.
What happens when replacement workers get involved? Again, the studies will tell us quite clearly that if replacement workers are hired by an employer, two things happen. One is that the strike, on average, will last six times longer than if replacement workers were not involved. The second thing the use of replacement workers does is to introduce an element of hostility and division in the community, because workers who are on strike see replacement workers as a threat to their livelihood. Quite often, replacement workers are hired through employment agencies or other ways in which they have no idea that they are being sent into such a position of conflict as a replacement worker.
What I think is really good about the legislation is that it would bank this practice. British Columbia and Quebec have already had this kind of legislation for years. Of course, the NDP has been trying to get it introduced at the federal level. We have introduced a bill eight times in the last 15 years. The last time we introduced it, in 2016, both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against anti-scab legislation.
The Conservative Party leader likes to talk about working people and how he is a friend of working people. I would say that the bill gives him a chance to demonstrate that concretely. His previous record does not show that. His party voted against minimum wages. His party, I guess I would say, has never seen back-to-work legislation it did not like. The record is clear on one side. If the Conservatives want to change that record, the legislation before us gives them an opportunity to demonstrate that they really are friends of workers and friends of progress, in terms of our economy.
Who are the workers most affected by the use of replacement workers? I am going to make a strange argument here, but quite often it is actually the non-union workers, because it is unionized companies and unionized sectors that set the standard that employers have to meet, even if those standards are not legislated. When we talk about the people who work in the lowest-paid, non-union jobs, they would actually be protected by the legislation as well, because it would allow unions to have shorter work stoppages and to negotiate better conditions, which would eventually spread through our economy.
Once again, I am back to the point I want to make. We hear a lot about how society and Parliament in Canada are suddenly dysfunctional. I do not believe that is true. I believe what we have are the choices that we are making. We make choices in the economy. It is not inevitable that we have great inequality. It is not inevitable that we have homelessness in our society. We make policy choices that have real outcomes that disadvantage many Canadians. We can make better choices and we can make different choices.
When we are talking about whether the House of Commons can do that, if the House of Commons appears dysfunctional to people, I believe that it is currently the result of choices being made by one party in the House to make the House of Commons appear dysfunctional and to make sure, as the party's leader declared, that we cannot get anything done anything in the House. He said he is going to grind the House to a halt, and we have seen him trying to do that. What is the impact of that on workers? It means we cannot get to legislation like the bill before us. It means we cannot get to a fair bargaining process for workers in the federal sector across the country. I represent a riding where there are lots of workers in the federally regulated sector. I know that this is important to them because they know it would shorten labour disputes and result in less hostility around the picket lines.
One last thing I want to talk about is that the improvement this legislation would make over what exists in B.C. and Quebec is that it considers the issue of remote work. One of the challenges we have now is that, in many industries, if there is a picket line, there is no need for employers to get someone to actually cross a physical line; they can hire people to work remotely. The federal legislation would actually be an improvement over what exists in British Columbia and Quebec, and I look forward to being able to vote in favour of it.
1761 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today we are speaking to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, otherwise known as the anti-scab legislation that workers from across the country have been calling for since time immemorial.
The NDP has put forward this legislation eight times in the last 15 years, and it has been defeated by Liberals and Conservatives alike. We are very happy and proud that we have forced the Liberal government to table the legislation this year; we look forward to seeing it become law as soon as possible.
Workers around the world have only one power to balance the relationship with employers. That is their work, the labour they provide to make the products or provide the services that give their employers their profits. The withdrawal of that labour or even the threat of withdrawal is the only thing that levels the playing field in labour negotiations. When negotiations break down and workers feel that a strike is the only option left to them to obtain a fair collective agreement, if the employer brings in replacement workers to break that strike, the playing field is tilted steeply in favour of the employer. Employers have no real reason to bargain in good faith, or at all, with the workers.
Labour relations in Canada have a long and deep history, and some of the most important moments in that history happened in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, in the Rossland mines. In the late 1800s, there was a mining boom across my riding, with gold mines in the South Okanagan and silver in the Slocan. Some of the richest mines were in Rossland.
In 1895, the Rossland miners formed the first Canadian local of the Western Federation of Miners. That local went on to advance many of the first labour laws in British Columbia and Canada, laws that brought in the five-day work week and the eight-hour workday, as well as laws enforcing safe workplaces, the first workers' compensation act.
Unrest in the mining camps resulted in the Canadian government sending Roger Clute, a prominent Toronto lawyer, to Rossland in 1899. He reported back that compulsory arbitration would be less effective than conciliatory measures, and after another trip to Rossland, his reports led to the federal Conciliation Act of 1900. That helped create the Department of Labour and the Canadian system of industrial relations. Rossland, and the miners of Rossland, helped build our system of labour relations across the country.
When everyone in this place goes home for the weekend; when everyone in the country goes home at five o'clock, after an eight-hour workday; and when every worker in Canada knows they have the right to a safe workplace, they can thank the members of the Rossland local of the Western Federation of Miners.
That is the benefit of having a healthy and fair system of labour relations. At the centre of that system is the right of workers to withdraw their work. Replacement workers, or scabs, destroy that system. Not only does hiring scabs take away any power that workers have to undertake fair negotiations, but it also often tears communities apart, especially small communities that have few other opportunities for good work. If workers go on strike in that situation and the company hires scabs, those replacement workers are taking away jobs from their neighbours and relatives. This increases tensions within the community, sometimes escalating into violence.
Using replacement workers was common during early strikes, including in the mines of British Columbia, and there are too many stories of violence from those days. One of the worst stories, though, comes from relatively recent times, when the workers at the Giant Mine in Yellowknife went on strike in 1992. That gold mine had been the mainstay of the Yellowknife economy for many years, but a new owner demanded cuts from the union, then locked the unionized workers out.
The company then hired replacement workers to keep the mine going and to keep the profits rolling in. Hostilities quickly rose, pitting neighbours against neighbours; this culminated in a bombing within the mine that killed nine miners, nine replacement workers. It is one of the worst mass murders in Canadian history.
This is why we need anti-scab legislation. This is why British Columbia and Quebec introduced anti-scab legislation and have had it for decades. Critics say that this legislation may allow strikes and lockouts to drag on; in fact, it usually has quite the opposite effect.
What impetus does the employer have to end a strike if they can use workers to keep things going, to keep those profits rolling in? If anything, outlawing replacement workers speeds negotiations up because both sides are on an even footing. The employer is losing profits, and the unions are losing pay. They both want to end the dispute as soon as possible. Many of the longest labour disputes in Canadian history have been those involving scabs, because the employer has no reason to bargain with the unions.
This law would take effect in federally regulated industries, such as ports, railways, airports, telecommunications and banks.
We recently had a dispute at the Port of Vancouver, and we are studying that issue in the international trade committee right now. Some witnesses have tried to paint a picture that labour is the cause of a declining reputation in Canadian supply chain reliability, that the unions dragged out negotiations and caused this strike. What we have heard at committee is exactly the opposite.
First, this is the first strike at the Port of Vancouver since 1969. Most people in this chamber were not even alive then. The collective bargaining system has been working very well there.
Second, delays in bargaining were clearly the fault of the employers or, rather, their association, the BC Maritime Employers Association. The BCMEA represents the employers at the bargaining table, but it had no mandate to make decisions. The union would respond with a counter-offer to the employers' offer within a day, but the BCMEA would take a week or 10 days to come back with its counter-offer.
Negotiations dragged on. The strike began, and it took 13 more days to come to an agreement. If it were not for the delays and intransigence of the employers, we could have easily reached that agreement before strike action was necessary.
We must remember that there are two sides to every labour dispute. The best, fairest and often shortest negotiations are those in which both sides have an equal balance of power. That is what Bill C-58 brings to the federal labour scene.
The NDP is, of course, very much in favour of this legislation. We have worked hard and long to improve it and will continue to do that when it goes to committee.
Our big concern now is the provision, within this bill, of a delay of 18 months before the legislation comes into force after passing through Parliament. We have heard no good reasons for this delay, and we will be making the case in committee to amend that part of the bill.
If the use of replacement workers is illegal, that provision should come into force immediately. I can see no reason that corporations or unions need 18 months, a year and a half, to get their heads around this change to Canadian labour law.
I remember one of the first debates I took part in in this place, a debate on an NDP private member's bill, in 2016, that was essentially the same bill we are debating today. I was so encouraged that we could be making such a big difference for workers, but I was profoundly surprised and disappointed when the Liberals and Conservatives defeated that bill.
I have since, unfortunately, gotten used to disappointments in this place. However, with this bill, we have the opportunity to take a step toward hope. I hope we can pass this bill at second reading quickly, have the committee debate it in detail and pass it so that all Canadians can enjoy better labour relations across the country.
With that, I would like to wish everyone here and everyone in the wonderful riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay a very happy Christmas and a peaceful holiday season full of love and good cheer.
1406 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is great to stand here today with a great piece of legislation that is going to help out Canadian workers and help our economy get to the next level. We believe that Canadian workers have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations, where replacement workers are not waiting in the wings to take their jobs.
That is why we have introduced this legislation, to ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. I have negotiated on both sides of the table, for the employer and for the union. I know for a fact that the best deals are always at the table. I know for sure that banning replacement workers puts that focus on the table to get the best deals possible.
This is where workers get those powerful paycheques that our Conservatives like to talk about. It is where Canadian workers secure reliable benefits and job security. The bargaining table is where Canadian workers secure changes and investments that make their workplaces much safer.
The threat of replacement workers tips the balance in the employers' favour. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of true collective bargaining. Ultimately, replacement workers give employers an incentive to avoid the bargaining table. It is a distraction that can prolong disputes and can poison workplaces for years after. We have seen it throughout our history, both locally in my riding and across Canada.
Conservatives like to perpetuate the myth that workers want to strike. They pretend that workers have some devious plan to halt our economy. This could not be further from the truth. Workers drive our economy. Positive labour relations make Canada a great place to invest, which we have seen so much of recently.
Striking is a last resort for workers. Nobody wants to lose their benefits and live off strike pay. It is an anxious, uncertain state for anyone. It can hurt a family's financial and psychological well-being. Our government believes that it is in everybody's best interest to ensure that workers, employers and the government work together to build a strong, stable and fair economy that we all rely on.
Unlike the Conservatives, we will not feel threatened when workers use their bargaining power to demand better wages and better working conditions. As the Minister of Labour has said, bargaining is hard work. It is tense and messy, but it works really well.
I met regularly with my constituents about labour issues, including the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council and the United Steelworkers, just to name a few. They are thrilled that we are doing this at a federal level. They want to see the same kind of leadership to benefit provincial workers in Ontario as well.
Just last week, I was at the Standing Committee on International Trade, where Robert Ashton, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, said the following: “If Bill C-58 had actually been in use for the last couple of years, all these lockouts and these strikes, where the employers have been using scabs and have drawn it out, would have been a lot shorter.”
He joined a chorus of union leaders who supported this legislation. This includes the United Steelworkers Union, which reported, “Federal anti-scab legislation will help 80,000 USW members and approximately one million workers across Canada.”
Lana Payne, the national president of Unifor, said, “This legislation is a step toward levelling the playing field. It will be good for the economy and good for labour relations”.
I know the opposition does not listen to workers, but maybe the Conservatives might listen to the 70 labour experts who signed an open letter calling on Canadian policy-makers to support Bill C-58. The letter states, “By adopting Bill C-58, Parliament has a historic opportunity to advance workers' rights and improve labour relations in federally-regulated workplaces by:
“Strengthening the collective bargaining process and levelling the playing field in contract disputes;
“Banning the use of strikebreakers that inflame tensions and poison workplaces [for very long periods of time];
“Reducing instances of picket violence and vandalism;
“Incentivizing employers to focus on reaching negotiated settlements at the bargaining table rather than strategizing over how to best undermine union members exercising their right to strike.
“Bill C-58 offers practical and meaningful measures that would help to address longstanding imbalances in the labour relations regime.”
We have heard from experts, from labour leaders and from Canadian workers. We have also heard from members of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, who have expressed their support for this legislation. However, we have not heard from the Conservatives. In fact, today, the CLC continues to issue statements calling on the Conservatives to tell us what their position is.
It is no surprise that the Conservative leader, who has spent his entire career standing against working people, has not shown his hand. He proclaimed himself dedicated to bringing the right-to-work laws to Canada. These notorious U.S. laws are aimed at undermining unions; ultimately, they are about worse conditions and smaller paycheques. The Leader of the Opposition has enthusiastically served wealthy interests most of his life. Under the previous government, he championed two of the most anti-union, anti-worker bills that the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We repealed them right away. In 2005, he even opposed child care, because the workers would be unionized.
Actions speak louder than words. Recently, the Conservatives have been opposing Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, which would bring workers to the table so that workers decide how we meet our economic opportunities. Instead, the Conservatives submitted 20,000 amendments at committee and then tried to submit another couple of hundred frivolous amendments to put the brakes on it. The race is on to seize the greatest opportunity of our time, which is to unlock the potential of renewables, to create thousands of jobs and to drive sustainable economic growth. Right now, companies are deciding where to invest and build. The Liberal government is meeting this momentum, but the Conservatives are throwing temper tantrums.
Now Conservatives, again, have not told us where they stand with respect to Bill C-58. In fact, in 2016, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan opposed similar legislation, arguing that replacement workers offered opportunities for the unemployed to gain temporary work and valuable experience. Think about being so out of touch with working Canadians that one thinks temporary jobs to replace working Canadians are somehow a solution. More recently, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster complained that similar legislation would result in a higher share of company profits going to unionized workers. In a time of record corporate profits, it is hard to imagine being upset that working Canadians might get a greater share of the profits that they are responsible for producing.
We know how important this legislation is to Canada's labour unions and the workers they represent. We know that experts support this bill. The bill has the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. I urge my Conservative colleagues to reconsider their efforts to oppose working Canadians and consider, just this once, actually supporting workers.
1234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to be able to rise in the House today to speak to this important bill, Bill C-58, which I do want to note is a part of the confidence-and-supply agreement that we have with the government. I want to quote from a section of that agreement under the heading, “A better deal for workers”. It reads:
Introducing legislation by the end of 2023 to prohibit the use of replacement workers, “scabs,” when a union employer in a federally regulated industry has locked out employees or is in a strike.
That was an important part of the agreement. That is why I am so happy to see this bill. We need to stand in this place every single day as representatives of our constituents and show that we are here to fight for workers. They deserve our respect, better wages and better working conditions. When we look at the history of collective bargaining in this country, it is the union movement that has done that.
I think of my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, going back to the 1920s and the 1930s. I come from a part of Canada where the forestry industry was dominant. If members ever go out to British Columbia, to the beautiful forests of Vancouver Island, they will see trees that they would have thought could only exist in their imagination. There was a massive timber industry. It was back then during the labour unrest of the 1920s and the 1930s from the absolutely brutal working conditions that workers were subjected to, with low pay, dangerous working conditions and everything else, when the worker militancy in the forests of British Columbia was born. Those workers used their power to fight for rights. That is a small part of the history of Canada. I am so proud of that heritage from the part of the world that I come from.
I am so proud to be a member of a party that is of the workers and for the workers. Everyone knows, of course, that our party, the NDP, was formed in 1961 as an alliance between the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress. We carry that heritage proudly with us to this day.
This bill is particularly important because, in the last 15 years, the NDP has introduced eight anti-scab bills. The last time they came up for a vote in 2016, it was the Liberals and the Conservatives that teamed up together to defeat it. We often are accused of having a short memory in this place, so I will say that into the record. In 2016, it was the Liberals and the Conservatives that teamed up together to defeat our last attempt to bring in anti-scab legislation.
I do not know where the Conservatives are going to stand on this bill. They have tried so desperately and spent millions of dollars to try and recast themselves as a party for the workers. They like to make their YouTube videos. I have yet to see the Leader of the Opposition out on a picket line. I still do not know where they are going to stand on this bill. Every time it has come to actual action to stand up for workers, they are more interested in their words. This is a moment to stand in this place through a vote to show that they are in favour of actual legislative change that is going to help the working movement.
I am proud that we have not given up on this issue. That is why we can stand here proudly, offer our support to Bill C-58 and show the workers of Canada that we are committed to moving this forward, to making sure that the Canada Labour Code is there for workers and that it has that important change. We know that this bill would not be moving forward if it had not been spelled out in the agreement and we know that this bill will require multiple party support to advance to the next stage.
I have a few theories as to why the Conservatives have been so absent in this debate. The few times that they have gotten up and put speakers on this bill, they have talked about anything but the bill. In fact, we have often had to raise points of order in the House to try and bring them back on topic. One of my theories is that the Conservatives, under the previous prime minister Stephen Harper, have a long and brutal legislative track record against workers, particularly ones who work under federal jurisdiction.
We can go back to 2007, when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-46, the Railway Continuation Act. That was back-to-work legislation against railway workers. It forced 2,800 members of the United Transportation Workers Union at CN Rail back to work: the drivers, yard-masters and trainmen. It forced them back to complying with pretty brutal demands from the employer. Fast-forward to 2011 and Bill C-6, the Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, which forced 48,000 locked-out postal workers back to work and imposed wage raises lower than what the employer had agreed to earlier. Fast-forward to 2012 and Bill C-33, when again the Conservatives intervened, this time between Air Canada and its employees—
908 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
- Dec/14/23 4:52:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are reams of evidence, decades of evidence, showing that, when we ban replacement workers, we shorten labour disputes and we reduce picket line violence. By balancing the bargaining relationship at the table, we get to more agreements. It is good for business, and it is good for the economy.
I am glad my friend spoke up because the Conservative Party lately has been trying to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes saying that they are somehow the friends of workers. They have voted against anti-scab legislation every time in the House. They have ordered workers back to work, violating their Charter right to strike. They even tried to raise the retirement age to 67, which is particularly hard on blue-collar workers, who have to do physical work and use their bodies. They opposed dental care. They opposed pharmacare and anything that would help workers actually get a break in these unaffordable times.
I just want to conclude by saying that, when New Democrats filibustered in 2011 for three days, we did so when the Harper government wanted to order Canadian post workers back to work. The Conservatives, when they did it just this week, were doing it to give a break to their corporate friends from the carbon tax. I think that tells workers all they need to know about which party really stands up for workers in the House.
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will begin by talking about democracy, union democracy.
There are some people who think that unions do whatever they want, however they want, but that is not at all true. First, it is a recognized right, is it not? Then, people at the head of unions are elected. I feel like saying that sometimes these are ejection seats when members are not pleased, are not satisfied. Union leaders do not do whatever they want, however they want, and their power is limited by the will of their members. I know something about that, having been the president of a 10,000-member union for 10 years. Democracy applies, as I always say.
Now that I have explained that a union is a very democratic body, I will come back to the matter at hand.
In nearly every one of their speeches, my colleagues have said from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of this important bill. I would like to add a few points. We will have hoped and waited a long time for something like this. As the saying goes, better late than never. Anti-scab legislation is a legislative tool that allows workers who, in order to gain respect and decent working conditions, must use the ultimate pressure tactic, a strike, to achieve that. Nobody is ever excited to have to go on strike.
My speech will be largely inspired by a file on this subject prepared by Unifor. Unifor was founded by two major Canadian unions: the Canadian Auto Workers Union and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. Unifor has a few more members than my union. It has 315,000 members, 696 locals and 29 sectors. The people at Unifor know what they are talking about. I see this legislation as nothing less than a matter of fundamental respect. I will take my cue from Unifor and share its premise:
Scabs tear apart communities, pull down workers and prolong disputes—something, we at Unifor, know all too well.
Since Unifor formed in 2013, our three longest labour disputes in terms of overall days lost involved the use of scabs. Labour disputes that involved scabs lasted on average six times longer than those without scabs.
Scabs remove any incentive for the boss to bargain fairly and they tip the balance of power away from workers trying to exercise their right to withdraw services when an employer is unreasonable.
What Unifor said on its website is clear.
It is always a good idea to remind the House that Quebec implemented this sort of legislative framework in 1977. There are, perhaps, a lot of people here who were not even born yet or who were not very old at the time, and so they may not be as aware of the harmful effects that the lack of such legislation can bring about. It is a matter of conviction. It is a matter of perception. However, the Quebec law has its limits. It does not apply to federally regulated employees.
At the core of all this is the idea of respect, respect for workers and their loyalty. It is also about respecting their legitimate request to be heard by their employers. It is about ensuring that, when the time comes to renegotiate an expired collective agreement, there is a real possibility of engaging in negotiations that are as productive, honest and fair as possible.
Scabs are a direct attack on the right to strike, as is the use of special back-to-work legislation. Canada has used that tactic extensively. I remember it happened with Canada Post, I believe, when I was first elected. That, too, is an attack.
The Supreme Court writes, “The right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations.”
It is clear that the right to organize and the right to strike to improve working conditions are both recognized rights in this country.
It is high time this law be brought into the federal framework because workers in federally regulated sectors in Quebec have essentially become a different category of salaried employees. The same can be said in British Columbia, which passed similar legislation in 1993. This means that, in Quebec and British Columbia, not all employees have the same rights.
Here in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois has tabled 11 bills since its creation. There have also been NDP bills.
Our esteemed colleague in the House, the longest-serving member of our assembly, waited 33 years for this result after introducing the first anti-scab bill back in 1990 and 11 others after that. The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel must be reliving a few highlights from those days now.
I would now like to return to the background document prepared by Unifor.
The scab might be the single most polarizing figure in the world of labour relations. For employers, the scab represents an effective means of applying economic pressure when contract talks with the union break down, either taking some of the financial sting out of a lockout, or undermining the effectiveness of a strike. For picketing union workers, the scab represents a breach in the strength of the line, and a loss of solidarity and collective power. At the same time, the use of scabs completely destroys the essence of a labour dispute, that is, a withdrawal of labour creating a cost to both the union and the employer.
The provisions of Bill C‑58, starting with the prohibition against using replacement workers, including subcontracted workers—except in very specific situations—along with the prohibition against crossing the picket lines and fines for non-compliance, are the basic components of this legislation.
These clear prohibitions form the basis for additional provisions, such as those specifying time limits for each intervention or the powers conferred on the minister to regulate the setting of penalties.
Is it any wonder that business groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, are concerned about Bill C‑58? The answer is no. I am thinking of the activities of lobbyists. I will come back to that shortly.
Employers do not want to lose that competitive edge over their workforce, namely the ability to settle a labour dispute without any industrial or commercial impact when other people are being paid, ever. Their position is that, if the bill passes, it would deprive employers of the opportunity to mitigate the harm caused by prolonged work interruptions and lead to further problems in supply chains still recovering from COVID‑19-related shutdowns.
COVID‑19 is clearly an excuse for everything. My question, however, is this: What about the harm being done to workers, for goodness' sake?
In 2023, it is frankly disappointing to see such organizations shirking their responsibilities. I would say that it is archaic to think that workers are not being harmed in any way, and that it is mostly employers that are harmed when their business declines.
The Government of Canada's delay in implementing this legislation leaves me, as a former union president, with a bad taste in my mouth. There is no need to wait 18 months after a bill receives royal assent for that legislation to come into force. We have never seen anything like it.
It is not required for the government, whose role is to legislate, to give in to the demands of employers. Which brings us back to the issue of lobbies, who always use their clout, in every area, to weaken legislation and regulations.
I will close by reading an excerpt from The Scab, by Jack London.
In the group-struggle over the division of the joint-product, labor utilizes the union with its two great weapons, — the strike and boycott; while capital utilizes the trust and the association, the weapons of which are the blacklist, the lockout, and the scab. The scab is by far the most formidable weapon of the three. He is the man who breaks strikes and causes all the trouble.
I am going to be realistic and end on that note. We should not celebrate too soon. It could take a while. Could there be obstruction? Could there be an early election that causes Bill C‑58 to die on the Order Paper?
Although there is still a long way to go, the Bloc Québécois is delighted that workers covered by the Canada Labour Code will soon have the same rights as all other Quebeckers. This will correct a major inequity.
1460 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
