44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my hon. colleague should come to Windsor and see the hundreds and thousands of workers who are building the battery plant right now. I would love to introduce him to every single one of them. There is a sense of tremendous optimism in my community, because we know we are going to have 2,500 great-paying jobs in Windsor. They will be for local, Canadian, unionized workers to build batteries, and not just for years but for generations.
Eight years ago, I remember, in Windsor, under the Conservative government, we had 11.2% unemployment. The Conservatives lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Windsor was ground zero for that. The Leader of the Opposition would remember that as well, because he was the minister of employment, or as I would like to call it, the minister of unemployment. A big part of that optimism is what the unions bargained for at the bargaining table: huge pay increases for workers.
When will Conservatives support unions? When will they support workers? When will they support Windsor? When will they support the bargaining table and Bill C-58?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 11:25:56 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's intervention, particularly when he was talking about how a lot of the established practices in the workplace have come through negotiations with unions over the years. I would agree with him completely.
Toward the end of his speech, he was talking about the obstructionary practices of Conservatives in the House. We did some calculations this morning, and, in fact, in the fall session alone that is wrapping up, in one out of every three days in the House, there was some obstructionary practice by the Conservatives. Conservatives will say that is their job, and I would say that it is not; their job is to hold the government to account, but not to grind the place to a halt, which is what they are trying to do. One can hold the government accountable without having to turn this place into a road show.
Would the member not agree with me that the Conservatives have failed in their responsibility?
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak on Bill C-58, so I will first put on the record that the Green Party supports this very important legislation. It is time for Parliament to act to protect workers' rights.
I used to practise in the area of labour law with a firm in Halifax back in the day that represented trade unions, specializing in labour law. I would ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to clarify why we are spending so much time on this debate.
I know he and other Conservatives have been told by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville that there is no connection in this bill whatsoever to having foreign workers come to any plant in Canada or any workplace in Canada. This bill is specifically to protect the right of collective bargaining and the rights of workers who have gone out on strike to not have what are called scab workers. That is a replacement worker. The workers at the Stellantis battery plant are not scab workers. Does the member agree?
195 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, I noticed during the debate today that there has been a certain amount of avoidance from the Conservatives to talk about Bill C-58.
Going back to the Stephen Harper days, I can remember those two private members' bills. One made it harder for unions to certify and one subjected unions to more stringent financial controls than businesses ever had to deal with, as well as all of the back-to-work legislation. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could talk about his time during those dark days and how the Stephen Harper government went after unions, went after workers with a vengeance, and how we still see some of the same crowd here today.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House of Commons today to speak about Bill C-58, the bill that would ban the use of replacement workers.
What this legislation would really do is strengthen workers and unions by strengthening one of the pillars of people power, the bargaining table. I come from a proud union town, a proud union town that knows how to build things. For over 100 years, we have been building cars and machines and tools for Canada, and we are darn good at it. What our unionized workers, brothers and sisters, have also built is a strong community of resilient and caring people who look after each other, and not only look after each other but fight for one another.
One of the ways we have been able to build this caring and generous community is through the bargaining table, with hard-won victories that improved wages, working conditions, health and safety and workers' rights and that provided time off to be with families.
In 1945, 14,000 Windsor auto workers at Ford went on strike. For 99 days they protested layoffs, unfair wages and working conditions, and after 99 days, they prevailed. Those Windsor workers stabilized the labour movement in Canada and provided the labour movement in Canada with a gift. It is called the Rand formula, which establishes and protects a union's right to collect union dues.
Every September, thousands of residents march in the Labour Day parade to celebrate all of the hard wins of the past and all of the hard wins of the present, while also recommitting to the next fight on the horizon to improve the lives of workers. I was proud to walk with Unifor, LiUNA, IBEW, the millwrights, teachers, nurses and so many others who work hard to provide for their families but also work hard to build their communities.
I want to take a moment to thank the Unifor bargaining committee that entered tough negotiations with Ford, Stellantis and General Motors just this October. Those were tough negotiations, tough bargaining, and our unions came away with the largest wage and pension increases in generations. Those hard-fought and hard-won improvements not only lift our auto workers but they lift our entire community.
That is the power of the bargaining table, and that is the power we are protecting here today with Bill C-58. It is the power of the bargaining table that we are strengthening.
In the last two years, our Liberal government has worked hand in hand with unions and workers to deliver some of the biggest wins in the history of our community of Windsor—Tecumseh. It is true solidarity. Together, we delivered the EV battery plant, which is just one example, the single-largest auto investment in the history of our community of Windsor—Tecumseh.
To understand the significance of the battery plant investment and to understand the importance of labour and the bargaining table and working together in that partnership, one has to understand the road my community has travelled—
516 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
- Dec/14/23 3:55:36 p.m.
- Watch
I wish a merry Christmas to all my constituents.
Those two pieces of legislation made it very difficult for unions to operate. It made it difficult to certify their members, easy to decertify them and tried to bury them in red tape. I was pleased to run under that banner and run again when we put pro-union and pro-worker legislation in our platform. This is a promise made and a promise kept.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I understand why he is uncomfortable with my speech right now. I am talking about a history of the Conservative government intervening and forcing workers back to work when we are talking about a bill, Bill C-58, which is designed to protect those collective bargaining rights. That is the context of my speech. I understand if he is uncomfortable taking a little walk down memory lane as we talk about Bill C-58.
We can also talk about 2012, when again the Conservative government intervened in a railway strike, demonstrating again it has no problem using a legislative sledgehammer against unions and workers. I hope on Bill C-58 its members stand up one day to vote in favour of this bill.
It was not just the government, because in the previous Harper government we had two private members' bill, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377—
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am talking about Bill C-58, but in talking about that bill, we need to put it in a historical context of why the Conservatives have been so anti-worker and so anti-union and have been repeatedly unafraid to use a legislative sledgehammer against workers and their unions in federally regulated sectors. That is what Bill C-58 is designed to protect, and Canadians need to understand they have a long history of being anti-worker and anti-union. This is a chance for them to try to redeem themselves from that shameful history.
Before the Liberals think they are going to get off the hook in my speech, let us turn to the Liberals and back-to-work legislation because both of these parties are equally guilty when it comes to that.
In 2018, the Liberals brought in Bill C-89, which ended the postal strikes and forced the Canadian Union of Postal Workers back to work.
In 2021, there was Bill C-29, which ended the strike of CUPE local 375 and its fight against the Port of Montreal.
Before my Conservative colleagues get a little too high on their horse, I would like to point out for both of those bills the Conservatives supported the Liberals, showing that when it comes to controlling workers and fighting against their interests, these parties more often than not have been voting in lockstep.
This is important, because if we look at the different lines of work that are covered by the Canada Labour Code we are talking about federally regulated workers in air transportation, banks, grain elevators, feed and seed mills, most federal Crown corporations, ports, marine shipping and ferries, canals, bridges and pipelines, postal and courier service, radio and television broadcasting, railways and many more. This legislation would impact thousands of workers, and it is important we show a united front and demonstrate that as members of Parliament we have their backs and are putting in legislative safeguards.
The history of Canada is one of labour fighting for its rights against corporations. There has been too much corporate deference over the last number of decades, and I am proud to see how that pendulum is starting to swing back into workers' favour these days. They are becoming more militant, more assured of their rights and more ready to use their collective bargaining to achieve those more powerful working conditions and better paycheques for themselves. I am proud to be able to stand in this place and offer them support.
Seeing as I am in the closing minute of my speech, I want to take this final opportunity I have in the House to wish all of my colleagues from all political parties a very merry Christmas and a very happy new year. We have had strong and principled debates and arguments in this place, but I hope everyone in this place has the opportunity over Christmas to spend some much needed time with their families and their friends and to reconnect with their constituents. I look forward to seeing everyone back here in 2024 as we continue the hard work of governing this country.
529 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
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 4:21:36 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 4:24:40 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 4:34:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, some Canadian provinces, including Quebec and British Columbia, have anti-scab legislation. If we had anti-scab legislation in Canada, then we would need to make sure that it applies everywhere and in every sphere of economic activity. The construction and battery sectors where the government is investing $50 billion also have unionized workers, and the unions help ensure the advancement of working conditions. We completely agree. I think it is important to set the stage for all these plans that might come to fruition and that need to be protected in one way or another.
The Liberal government that has been in office for eight years has not helped Canadian workers, quite the contrary. During the past eight years under this Liberal government, there have been more than 300 major, unprecedented labour disruptions. Had it not been for the pressure exerted by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, we would not even be here today, because the Liberals do not care about Canadian workers. They have proven it on many occasions. Once again, the government let this bill languish. It is still letting it languish and will continue to do so. Once the bill is passed, the government is giving itself another 18 months to implement it. The government could implement this bill a lot faster than that.
After eight years of this Liberal government, work does not pay like it used to in Canada.
I see that my time is already up. I could have talked for another 30 minutes, but I am ready to take questions from my colleagues.
272 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it gives me great personal pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, which would finally ban the use of replacement workers or, as we in the labour movement call them, scabs, in federally regulated workplaces.
Prior to being elected in 2008, I had the honour of working for 16 years with the Teamsters union and, unlike many people in this place, I had the opportunity to experience, first-hand, how important this legislation is. I have been on and walked on many picket lines in my life, unlike most members in the House. I sat at bargaining tables, negotiating collective agreements.
I represented workers at labour board hearings and saw unfair labour practices, where employers would fire workers who did nothing more than exercise their rights under the Canada Labour Code and under the Charter of Rights. I have seen what happens when employers use replacement workers to undermine unions and workers as they are exercising their constitutional right to strike.
The NDP has been Canada's political party for workers for many decades. Prior to its formation as the New Democratic Party in 1960, it took the form of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. In all of its iterations, it has always been a party that puts at the centre of our being the need to make sure that workers in this country are protected.
We believe, as New Democrats, that Canadian workers deserve respect, dignity, generous wages, proper benefits, and safe and healthy working conditions. We know that workers are the backbone of the Canadian economy. We believe that all Canadian workers should get a fair share of the fruits of the wealth their labour, talents and skills play such a pivotal role in creating.
In this venue or milieu, no entity has done more to achieve these goals than Canada's labour movement. It is through the hard work of unions, their efforts, their courage and very often their sacrifices, that Canadian workers have come to enjoy the many benefits that they do today.
I want to touch on just a few of the benefits that were fought for by unions, benefits that Canadian workers take for granted today. In many cases, these were fought for by unions, demanded at bargaining tables and, in many cases, paid for by the blood, sweat and sacrifice of Canadian workers on picket lines. They include the 40-hour work week; overtime; paid vacations; pensions; health and welfare plans providing workers and their families with eyeglasses, dental services and prescriptions; paid sick time; a voice in the workplace; and, most importantly, the opportunity for workers to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their work instead of simply taking whatever their employer is dictating to them.
These and many other rights were not given to workers. They are the products of hard-fought bargaining, often by workers who had to suffer great wage losses by striking or being locked out for these gains. They won these rights through collective bargaining and, incidentally, all workers, whether they are unionized or not in this country, now enjoy those benefits, paid for by those unions and the workers who sacrificed for them.
They never had to make these sacrifices without pain. These people did not do this only for themselves. They did it for other workers and for their children and generations to come. Many of these workers made these sacrifices at great risk to their personal safety. Canadian labour history is replete with horrific examples of employers hiring private security forces, often goons, to attack striking workers.
Some workers, many workers, even died. As they were laying down their tools and forgoing their wages to exercise their right to strike for the betterment of their fellow workers and for generations to come, many had to watch unscrupulous employers hire replacement workers, scabs, to cross those picket lines to perform their work.
What is the impact of that? When replacement workers are used, it undermines the workers. Workers lose money while they are striking, but employers continue to profit and operate during the strike, so that tilts the bargaining table in favour of management. It also prolongs strikes and lockouts. On average, labour disputes where scabs are used last six times longer than when they are not. It leads to picket line violence, divides communities and causes family tension and suffering.
I will go through a few examples in Canadian history. People may remember the Giant Mine strike, one of the most tragic events in Canadian labour history, which happened in Yellowknife. At that time, in 1992, Royal Oak Mines locked out its workers and decided to use replacement workers in that small community of Yellowknife. Canadian mines had not seen a replacement worker used in the previous 50 years. The scabs were used explicitly as strikebreakers. It undercut bargaining, enraged the local workers and split families in the community. The tragic result was that nine workers died in a bombing incident.
I personally experienced this kind of violence myself. The Gainers strike in Edmonton in 1986 was a strike that lasted six and a half months, and Peter Pocklington, the owner of Gainers, hired strikebreakers to break the strike of workers doing some of the hardest, most physical, unpleasant work there is working in a rendering plant. I watched as Peter Pocklington brought in scabs and saw first-hand the violence that caused on the picket line.
I remember the Zeidler Forest Products strike in the 1980s, where I saw scabs speed up as they were driving their cars toward the men and women on the picket lines, narrowly missing them and, in some cases, hitting them as they sped by, impervious to the striking workers' welfare. Lest we think this is a relic of the past, just this month I visited a picket line in Vancouver at Rogers Communications, which had locked out its workers in British Columbia and used scabs to cross the picket line to do the striking workers' jobs.
I also want to talk about the fact that the Liberals and Conservatives only seem to care about the rights of workers to strike in this country when the impact of those strikes is strong. They will order Canada Post workers back to work, and they will order port workers back to work, but right now, as we speak, there are hundreds of people on strike at the Sheraton Vancouver Airport Hotel. They are going into their third year on strike, and they are mainly women and immigrants. Maybe the impact of this strike is not as strong on the economy. In that case, the Liberals and Conservatives will let workers rot on the picket line for years, but if workers have any real economic clout, then, all of a sudden, their rights have less meaning.
The answer to this is to ban scabs. British Columbia has done it in this country for many decades, and so has Quebec. The NDP has introduced anti-scab legislation eight times in the last 15 years, and the Liberals and Conservatives voted against it every single time. Today, make no mistake, I want every Canadian worker in this country to know that Bill C-58 is the product of one party in the House, and that is the NDP. We forced the Liberals to put this in as a demand in our confidence and supply agreement. That agreement is not a mutual agreement. It is a series of 27 demands that the NDP made of the Liberals in exchange for our support of the government.
I have heard the Liberals bragging in the House about their 2021 platform. I looked at it, and in that platform, for the first time in history, the Liberals talked about banning replacement workers, but only in the case of a lockout. They did not care about banning replacement workers if workers exercised their right to strike. It was only in the narrow instance where an employer might lock out its workers that they were prepared to extend the ban of replacement workers. It was the NDP that said, no, we must ban replacement workers in all labour disputes, both in lockouts and strikes.
I want to thank organized labour, the CLC, the building trades and the Teamsters union. I also want to and give a shout-out to all my brothers and sisters in Teamsters Local 31 and Teamsters Canada across this country, who have been fighting for decades for this very basic and equitable measure in Canadian labour law.
1439 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
