- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Bloc Québécois
- Thérèse-De Blainville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $122,743.44
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, in 1977, under René Lévesque's Parti Québécois government, the Quebec Labour Code banned the use of replacement workers.
The Quebec labour minister at the time, Pierre Marc Johnson, said the following when the legislation was introduced, and I quote: “The purpose of this measure is not to automatically close factories during a lockout or legal strike, but rather to restore a healthy balance between the parties and eliminate practices that cause tension and violence during labour disputes.... Workers, not companies, are the first to suffer as a result of a work stoppage, and letting the employer carry on as though nothing is wrong during a lockout or legal strike creates a fundamental imbalance between the parties.”
This was a major step forward for workers' rights in Quebec and a defining moment in the history of the labour movement and its struggle.
Today, 46 years later, Bill C-58 seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to ban replacement workers. Bravo, or should I say, “it is about time”?
It is certainly a step forward for the rights of federally regulated workers, but above all, it is making up for lost time. The fate of thousands of workers and their right to bargain and to strike has been, continues to be and will continue to be undermined by this inexcusable delay, at least until the bill comes into force 12 months after receiving royal assent.
The effects of this injustice are still being felt. Quebec workers live under two systems. Federally regulated workers in Quebec who are currently in a dispute are paying the price for this injustice. Think of the port of Quebec workers who have been locked out for nearly two years. The employer is using replacement workers. No one is talking about it. No one is working on fixing this because it is business as usual. This is unacceptable.
Think of the Vidéotron employees in Gatineau, who are also locked out. In that telecommunications sector, thousands of jobs are being outsourced to call centres overseas. They too have been locked out for several months, and replacement workers are being used.
At the port of Sorel‑Tracy, the United Steelworkers went on strike for 12 months, and scabs were brought in.
I could continue to list all of the injustices and shameful practices that employers have engaged in with impunity because, to date, the Canada Labour Code has not been changed to remedy this injustice.
Unions have been calling for anti-scab legislation as part of the Canada Labour Code for a long time, and so has the Bloc Québécois. Over the past 33 years, there have been 11 bills, the very first of which was tabled in 1990 by the dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Time after time, the Liberals and the Conservatives have blocked the Bloc Québécois's bills. I myself introduced Bill C-276 in this Parliament in May 2022.
The fight was waged by unions and the Bloc Québécois, with constant prodding and the strength of our convictions. The NDP will take credit for that. It was certainly part of that struggle too and, indeed, we commend its work, just as we commend that of the Department of Labour and the leadership the minister has shown.
However, there is a “but”, and it is a big “but”. Unfortunately, we have to wonder, given the way the bill has been crafted, with the proposed implementation deadline, for one, whether there is any real intention for this bill to actually see the light of day or whether it is just window dressing, meant to look good.
Everyone knows as well as I do that there is a clear difference between fact and appearance, just as there is a difference between declared values and practised values.
From the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has condemned the fact that the initial bill provided for an 18-month coming-into-force period following royal assent. Given this time frame and the fact that we have a minority government, it is no wonder that we are questioning the intent. We proposed an amendment in committee to repeal this delay, proposing that the bill come into force as soon as it receives royal assent. This amendment was rejected by all parties, because the NDP and the Liberals had agreed in advance to propose a 12-month delay. However, the vast majority of the unions we heard from said that there was no explanation for the delay and they too wanted the bill to take effect right after royal assent. That is what it means to protect workers, and the Bloc Québécois stepped up.
When we began studying the bill, we announced that we also wanted to improve it in committee and move fast to close the loophole to ensure that the nonsense of using scabs is banned for good. We proposed carefully chosen amendments put forward by the unions. Among other things, these amendments aimed to include federal public service employees and thus correct a major omission. The government, as an employer, has excluded its own employees from the scope of the bill. We proposed a relevant amendment, but it was ruled out of order because it would amend another act. In principle, however, it is very unfortunate that the bill does not apply to federal government employees. This error needs to be corrected and I hope it will be corrected.
We also made amendments to amend or repeal sections that allow exceptions to the prohibition rule. It may seem complicated. Strikebreakers are prohibited, but there are exceptions. Among the exceptions, I would particularly mention employees covered prior to the bargaining notice. The employer is permitted to use these employees as replacements for striking employees in the event of a dispute, lockout or strike.
It would even be possible for an employee in a bargaining unit of the same employer—but in a different local—to be called upon to replace workers or colleagues during a strike or lockout. This makes no sense whatsoever. The unions have rightly denounced this. If the law is supposed to be consistent, how can certain categories of workers, such as subcontractors and independent contractors, be excluded from this restriction? That sort of thing is prohibited under Quebec's law.
We also proposed an amendment to provide for an investigation mechanism that exists under the Quebec code. If the government wants to impose sanctions, if it wants to be tougher, it has to give the Canada Industrial Relations Board the means to do its job and investigate if the employer breaks the law. Employees cannot do that. Employees who are on strike or locked out cannot enter the factory or their employer's premises. An investigator would have to be called in. This amendment was also rejected.
We had also proposed an amendment to reduce the time limits for the Canada Industrial Relations Board orders so as not to unduly interfere with the strike. All these amendments were rejected.
We are disappointed that these proposed improvements were rejected. They are essential for ensuring the consistency of the bill's objective of fully recognizing the fundamental right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike. However, we can be proud that we put them forward, stood by our convictions, and listened to and supported union demands in the fight for workers' rights.
If the past is any indication, an opportunity to reform the legislation is unlikely to come around again any time soon. This supposedly historic bill deserved more care and attention to achieve its objectives. I hope that history will vindicate the struggle of workers and finally rectify the injustice they have laboured under for so many years.
1339 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the question as to whether our Conservative colleagues are in favour of this bill to prevent the use of scabs in the event of a labour dispute, strike or lockout is certainly relevant. It is a simple question.
The reason this bill is under consideration now is that, for decades, the Bloc Québécois has been lobbying for governments to pass anti-scab legislation. This is also happening because thousands of workers are pressuring the government.
We have had similar legislation in Quebec since 1977. In Canada, however, it took significant pressure for this bill to see the light of day.
Will you tell workers that you support the anti-scab legislation proposed by Bill C-58, yes or no?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is the third time that my Conservative colleagues have mentioned the use of replacement workers, or foreign workers, in factories in Windsor or in battery factories.
Bill C‑58 deals with something else entirely. That is crystal clear. Although the bill refers to “replacement workers”, I think that the Conservatives know that it is intended to prevent the hiring of scabs in the event of a labour dispute. Its aim is to finally prevent employers from using scabs during a strike or lockout and allowing the dispute to go on forever. That is unfair. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. The question is clear. We are talking about scabs.
Will my colleague vote for or against Bill C‑58?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his speech, but I do not understand what his actual position will be when we vote on Bill C‑58, which aims to protect striking and locked-out workers by preventing employers from using scabs during labour disputes. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. Federal governments of all stripes have dragged their feet when it comes to adopting such legislation.
Bill C‑58 will protect workers' strike and lockout rights and, during labour disputes, prevent employers from hiring scabs. Is my colleague's party for or against Bill C-58? That is what I want to know.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it was wonderful to hear all the arguments that were in no way connected to Bill C-58. It was a thing of beauty.
I am going to ask the member a clear question. Bill C-58 is intended to prevent the use of scabs in the workplace so that proper negotiations can take place in the event of strikes and lockouts.
We must prevent the use of scabs. This still happens. At the Port of Québec, longshore workers have been locked out for over a year, and there are scabs coming in to do their work. That is unacceptable. We have failed to correct that situation here for over 50 years. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the Conservative Party is for or against Bill C-58.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
I feel like saying, “at long last”. It was about time we got Bill C-58, a federal anti-scab bill. We have been calling for one for ages. The Bloc Québécois will definitely be supporting the bill in principle.
It might bear repeating that the Bloc Québécois has tabled several bills in the House aimed at ending the use of scabs during labour disputes. The first one was tabled by our colleague, the dean of the House, before the Bloc Québécois even existed. There have been 11 bills total. Although Canada is 46 years behind Quebec, because Quebec has had an anti-scab law on the books since 1977, this bill is a great accomplishment, but there was a lot of catching up to do to address the power imbalance in the employer-union relationship.
We were delighted when the bill was introduced. We welcomed it. We decided that it if was good for the workers of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois would support it. We think it was welcomed in all quarters, by the major unions of both Quebec and Canada. They have been calling for such a bill for years, even during consultations with the government in 2021 and 2022. The government announced that it would introduce a bill by late December 2023. It has done it, but we said at the time that that date was too far away and much too late. Some will say better late than never, but in this case, every passing day is a grave injustice for workers. The fact that the Canada Labour Code still allows the use of replacement workers in the event of a dispute creates a serious power imbalance.
Why is this so important? At the very least, it is a question of rights and freedoms. I just want to remind my colleagues that in the 2015 Saskatchewan ruling, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, recognized that the right to strike is not merely derivative of the right to bargain and to organize, it is indispensable in our society. That makes this right as important as the right to bargain. Using replacement workers and allowing them to be used in the event of a strike or a lockout is tantamount to fundamentally denying the right to strike. This problem absolutely had to be fixed.
This bill will also restore the balance of power. Now we will hear employers and big industry rise up against the bill, as we have heard them do before. They will argue that the bill will create an imbalance, that it will be dangerous for supply chains and the economy. The opposite is true. Back in 1977, the strikes in Quebec were tough. There was violence on the picket lines. That is one of the reasons Quebec passed a law to restore balance, as well as to restore a certain degree of industrial peace in labour disputes.
The only leverage available to a union or workers in the event of a dispute with the employer is their final resort: a strike. Employers have a similar right, the right to lockout. If employers are allowed to use replacement workers on top of imposing a lockout, they will be living the high life.
What does an employer stand to gain by settling the dispute as long as other workers cross the picket lines and are able to do the work without anyone getting their nose bent out of shape? What is happening right now in Quebec?
The conflict at the Port of Québec has been going on for almost two years. For more than 18 months, unionized workers with the Canadian Union of Public Employees have been locked out. What is more, the port is using replacement workers—scabs—who are often paid more than the employees, so the dispute continues. No one is getting worried. No one is connecting the dots. In terms of the economy, it is the workers who provide services at our ports, on our waterways and as part of our major infrastructure. They are part of those supply chains people talk about.
When workers do not have good working conditions, which is what they are demanding by going on strike, and when the dispute drags on, workplaces get weaker. Occupational health and safety can also be compromised, because replacement workers do not always have all the skills and attributes it takes to do the job. We have to pay attention to that.
We often see people act like the sky is falling when port workers go on strike. Just look at what happened at the Port of Vancouver. With the strike not even 24 hours old, people were already panicking and demanding special legislation. In many situations, disputes involving workers under federal jurisdiction were ended by either passing special legislation or allowing scab labour. That makes no sense anymore. This situation must be addressed.
We are pleased to see a bill on this matter. What worries us now, and with good reason, is whether the bill will succeed this time. How fast will the government move this bill forward to make sure it is not simply an intention that ends up dying on the Order Paper because it did not have enough time to make it through the process?
We are saying this for a reason. The bill already states that the legislation will not come into force until 18 months after royal assent. That is a year and a half. How can we count on that? There is no justification for that. I think things are clear. The provisions to be amended in the Canada Labour Code are quite clear.
There is no need to wait 18 months. The time frame must be shortened so that the bill comes into force as soon as it receives royal assent, as most other acts do. We can make it happen. We need to be able to respond to workers and give them what they need. It cannot just be wishful thinking.
Mr. Speaker, you are telling me I am out of time. Sign language is very difficult for me to understand.
I will conclude by saying that we absolutely must speed up the process. We need to ensure that this bill does not give full legitimacy to the right to strike and lockout by prohibiting replacement workers while at the same time limiting that same right to strike.
This is essential. The bill requires two major corrections.
1124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
