- 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
- May/24/24 12:42:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I hope he knows the answer.
Since it began, the labour movement has not only advanced workers' rights but it has also helped society as a whole to progress, with greater social justice, greater equality and greater fairness. The unions did this not just for workers' rights but for all citizens. History shows that.
In Quebec, these struggles were important. Progress was made during the Quiet Revolution, when the socio-political context was difficult and there were bitter disputes. The unions played a part in and contributed to the evolution of society and established—
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 12:41:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that there are probably a number of reasons, but it takes political will. For both sides of the House, after this many years, the system is all right. They can live with it.
In terms of labour law, there are no examples to cite here. Governments have introduced an increasing number of special laws that undermine workers' rights.
There was no political will to change the rules of the game. Will this time be different? Will the rules change? Workers who are currently in a dispute, on strike or locked out under this system know full well that the legislation will not apply to them or resolve their dispute. They are already fighting for future workers. The legislation will only come into force 12 months after it receives royal assent. In the meantime, the federal government will continue to enforce the code, which does not prohibit the use of replacement workers.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 12:38:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked me if we had gotten any intelligent explanations. I will not accuse anyone of being unintelligent, but I questioned the Minister of Labour and Seniors quite regularly, and we were told that the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs time to ensure that the law fully comes into force.
I am not entirely satisfied with that answer, because one would think that between the bill drafting stage and royal assent, the government would be able to apply all the resources needed to start the work.
I still have my doubts, because there is clearly a big difference between introducing a bill and hoping that it will pass.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 12:36:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, every province has its own jurisdictions. Every province decides on the social progress it wants to make with respect to labour law. In Quebec, that is it.
After 46 years, the federal government is now saying it is pleased with what is happening. It would have been even better if the government had the courage to include federal public servants in the bill. It would have been even better if the bill had come into force as soon as it received royal assent to eliminate the possibility of any further use of replacement workers.
There is still some work to be done here.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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, 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
- Nov/27/23 4:01:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, is it a benefit? I dare say it is a right.
It has become important in terms of regulating labour relations during disputes. We know it is a fundamental right, as I just said. Allowing this right to be fully exercised without interference forces the parties to come to a satisfactory agreement. When there is a greater balance of power, both sides are encouraged to resolve disputes faster. It also prevents serious health and safety issues. It makes a return to work possible. I am not saying that returning to work is always an easy task. There has to be some level of industrial peace to keep fighting.
When the sword of Damocles hangs above one's head, and nobody on the employer's side has any interest in settling, it can only poison the labour environment. A law that protects basic rights effectively ensures some level of industrial peace during negotiations.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before the bill we are debating was introduced, a working group looked into this matter. The mandate of that working group, created in March 2022 by the transport minister at the time, was to study recent supply chain disruptions. Factors like pandemics, COVID-19, climate change and flooding were mentioned, among other things.
I think the mandate of the working group is important, but I do not see the connection between that mandate and the bill before us. The bill seems to be an empty shell of the much-vaunted announcement that promised this was the start of a major national supply chain strategy.
My question is this: Basically, what needs to be done for things to change? I will conclude by saying that the measures also refer to addressing the labour shortage. This was not successful at the Port of Montreal. The government passed a special law rather than improving working conditions because workers are also part of the supply chain.
My question is the following: How can this be considered a strategy? How will the problem of a major labour shortage in supply chains be resolved?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/23 11:40:22 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it should do so immediately, then. That is why the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to prohibit strikebreakers. Quebec prohibited the use of strikebreakers in the 1970s. What is good for all workers in Quebec should be good for federally regulated workers.
This government claims to defend the middle class. If that is the case, then when will it bring back our bill and prohibit the use of strikebreakers, a practice that undermines labour rights?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 11:39:56 a.m.
- Watch
I would be happy to, Madam Speaker.
On Saturday, it will be two years since all of the parties in the House recommended, in a report, a comprehensive EI reform. All the parties, including the Liberals, made that recommendation. Two years later, absolutely nothing has been done.
However, in that report, all the parties found that the “program no longer reflects the realities of today’s labour market”. In other words, the Liberals have known for two years that they are leaving workers to deal with an outdated system. They admitted as much.
When will they take action?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 2:57:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, eight days have passed since the public service strike began, and people are still looking for the Prime Minister.
The union has formally asked him to join the negotiations. The invitation has been made, but it is being snubbed by the Prime Minister. Eight days is unusually long for a dispute of this magnitude. The Prime Minister knows that he cannot do without the 150,000 workers who provide services to Canadians.
When will he answer the workers' call instead of prolonging the labour dispute?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:00:17 p.m.
- Watch
What is the minister waiting for, Mr. Speaker?
Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. This government is 50 years behind the times. It is consulting, thinking and putting things off. As a result, the Océan Remorquage labour dispute is still dragging on because of the use of replacement workers. Real workers with real needs are here today because the minister's inaction is harming their families and the free right to collective bargaining.
What is he waiting for to introduce—
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 2:59:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of Canadian Labour Congress workers are on Parliament Hill today. Among them are the United Steelworkers members employed by Océan Remorquage in Sorel‑Tracy. They are here because the federal government supports the use of scabs in their labour dispute. Even today, Quebec workers are still being replaced by scabs who are paid three times their wages because the federal government is 50 years behind the times.
The minister has held his consultations. There are no more excuses for failing to take action. Will he immediately introduce an anti-scab bill?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 2:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the striking United Steelworkers employees from Océan Remorquage of Sorel-Tracy. That company is a federally regulated business that provides port services. Workers demonstrated yesterday in Quebec City to demand decent working conditions and wages, as well as anti-scab legislation.
These workers have been on strike for more than five months and are dealing with a bad faith employer who chose to take advantage of the weakness inherent in the Canada Labour Code to hire scabs, thus allowing the dispute to drag on.
I would remind the House that the Minister of Labour has been mandated to introduce a bill to ban this practice, which greatly affects workers' bargaining power. He will not do so until December 2023. There is no justification for this delay. He must act now.
The Bloc Québécois has introduced 11 bills to correct this injustice, and today we reiterate the importance of this issue by showing our support for these striking workers.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/22 2:41:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the pilot projects do nothing to fix the eligibility criteria. By reverting to the old EI rules without any reform, the minister is putting both workers and employers at risk.
This is a recipe for decline in the regions. The first step is to deprive workers of employment insurance, forcing them to change jobs or move. The next step is to deprive business owners of labour, forcing them to close. This is why Quebec's regions are failing to thrive.
Does the minister realize what she is becoming a party to?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 2:40:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Syndicat québécois de la construction, the Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec and member groups of the CNC are all on Parliament Hill to say that they do not accept the fact that the Prime Minister is plunging workers into uncertainty, starting on Sunday.
Ending temporary EI measures without reform is a step backwards towards the same old program that leaves 60% of workers behind when they need it most.
Will the Prime Minister fix this situation by Sunday?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what worries me is that we are in the midst of a crisis, during which the government took action quickly. During this crisis, we saw the flaws in the EI system. However, the government is telling us that unemployment is down so it can wait a little longer to reform the system. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Clearly, training is necessary. It might be a good idea to increase training budgets so that workers can update, recertify and develop their skills. However, that work must be entrusted to the provinces, because it falls under their jurisdiction.
In Quebec, this responsibility should be given to the labour market partners commission, a unique commission that engages in social dialogue.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce this anti-scab bill to protect workers during a strike or lockout. This is a long-standing demand of workers and unions, and I am proud that my colleague from Manicouagan supports this bill. She is a steadfast ally of working people.
It is quite simple: If we want to foster industrial peace, free bargaining, and sound and sensible labour law practices, then the right to association, the right to free bargaining and the right to strike must be guaranteed. The failure to put anti-scab provisions in place undermines the power to bargain.
Such provisions have existed in the Quebec Labour Code since 1977, and this has contributed to industrial peace. In fact, federally regulated business see twice as many strikes or long lockouts as we see in Quebec, and this is due to the absence of anti-scab legislation.
The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-276, and it is not the first. We hope that this will be a priority. It is unfortunate that it was not in the budget, but there is still time to do the right thing and act. That is where we want to go.
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe it is a matter of political choice. Take, for example, the anti-scab legislation that has been part of the Quebec Labour Code since 1977. It is now 2022 and the federal government still does not have such legislation. Adopting provisions for fair treatment is a choice.
Does the government really value the right of association? Does it value just and fair working conditions? Those are questions for the government, because having to look back 20 years does not give us a good idea of what it will do tomorrow.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that my colleague knows very well what the answer is, since the entire labour movement, including the Canadian Labour Congress, Quebec's four central labour unions, and several other unions, such as the unemployed workers' associations, have raised a number of issues.
Furthermore, on our initiative, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a study on this subject, so I think that the solutions are known.
However, what I find unfortunate and do not understand is how the NDP, when it signed its pact with the Liberal government, could fail to consider the fact that the central labour unions told all the candidates during the last election that EI was a priority for the unemployed workers' associations.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
