Bill C-58

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(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.

Canada Labour Code

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening in support of Bill C‑58. I will say from the outset that I am very proud that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the anti-scab bill. We have been asking for so long that it be passed quickly. We urge all parties in the House to do whatever it takes to pass it as quickly as possible. We will be very pleased when the bill truly passes, including in the Senate, and the government hastens to implement it.

I am sure that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou will provide more details on this than I will. The longshore workers at the Port of Québec are currently on strike in her riding. They have waited long enough. They saw that their right to strike was not being respected because ports are under federal jurisdiction.

I have to say that Bill C-58 is the culmination of a lengthy undertaking. It constitutes a major step forward for workers. They earned it. This bill should have been passed a long time ago. It restores the balance of power between employers and employees in labour disputes once and for all.

The use of scabs has been banned in Quebec since 1977. It is now 2023, and there are still unionized employees in Quebec who work for federally regulated businesses who do not have the same rights. It is as though we have two categories of unionized workers in Quebec. We therefore have a tendency to forget that the use of scabs is completely archaic. We must allow all workers to assert their rights in a labour dispute. We cannot really tolerate the use of scabs. We are wondering why it took the government so long to introduce this bill, given that it has been in office since 2015.

In every sector under federal jurisdiction, when there is a labour dispute and when workers use their ultimate pressure tactic, when the workers choose and use their right to strike, the employer can simply resort to using scabs. That means the power relationship is broken in favour of the employer. The power is given to the employer. There is an imbalance in the bargaining relationship, the power relationship. It is completely unfair. In 2023, it makes absolutely no sense.

We are talking about people who work for railway companies, airlines, the banking sector, and the ports across Quebec and Canada. We know that currently in Quebec there are many workers on strike. Imagine if scabs were used to replace the 420,000 workers on strike in Quebec. That would upset the balance that allows workers to assert their rights. That would be completely unacceptable. That is why we think it is high time to implement Bill C‑58 as soon as possible.

The bill was introduced by the government. We have to assume that they will vote in favour of it. We also know that the NDP supports it. The Bloc Québécois is also on board. That means three parties agree that the bill should pass. Normally, based on the usual legislative process, if the bill makes it to committee, we should be able to pass it by Christmas. The three recognized parties in the House that are publicly advocating for the bill's passage need to get to work to pass it quickly.

As I said earlier, everyone except the Conservatives agrees that we need anti-scab legislation. I would be remiss if I did not mention the speech by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who is from Quebec. He did not say a word about his position, as a member from Quebec, on the whole issue of scabs.

I can say that this came as a great surprise to me, because he is usually a very diligent MP. It is clear here that he is just toeing the party line and avoiding taking a stand.

I am probably coming off as a little impatient. Frankly, I am stunned that we are debating such an important bill today, so many years after Quebec passed similar legislation.

All the same, I would like to remind my colleagues that this is not the first time we have debated such a bill in the House of Commons. In 1990, a certain MP for Richelieu, who is now the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel and our one and only dean in the House, introduced a bill on this subject. At that time, there were five Bloc Québécois MPs; they were recognized as independent MPs. All that to say, it has been a long time. This is not our first attempt. Thirty-three years ago, the dean of today's House introduced an anti-scab bill. Members can understand my impatience. I think it is amply justified.

Over the years, 10 other anti-scab bills have been tabled by Bloc Québécois members, on top of those tabled by NDP members. That is quite a number of times that we have worked together to try and create modern legislation to govern the working relationship between union members and employers.

I will take a moment to commend the members who have teamed up with workers and unions over the years. Bernard St‑Laurent, a former member for Manicouagan, introduced a bill in 1995. Osvaldo Nunez did so in 1996. Ghislain Fournier, another former member for Manicouagan, did so in 1998, 2001 and 2002. He was quite determined and introduced his bill three times.

I am also thinking of Monique Guay, a former member for Laurentides, with whom I had the opportunity to sit. She introduced her bill in 2002. I am thinking of Roger Clavet, a former member for Louis‑Hébert, who introduced his bill in 2004. Richard Nadeau, a former member for Gatineau, tabled one in 2006. I am also thinking of Mario Laframboise, a member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who introduced his bill in 2010.

People have put a great deal of effort into this issue. Obviously, I am thinking of my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville, who introduced her own anti-scab bill this year, Bill C‑276, to put pressure on the current Liberal government, which was being slow to keep its promise.

The Bloc Québécois wants this bill. We are working tirelessly with workers to get it passed and, above all, to get it implemented.

Given that background, I cannot understand why the government decided provide for an 18-month delay before this bill comes into force. I find that very hard to accept. Anyone who cares about workers cannot understand why this bill, which was long awaited by unionized workers, most members of the House, and especially the Port of Québec strikers, will not come into force until 18 months after it receives royal assent.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to convince the Liberals to drop that provision, which makes no sense, and that we will all be able to agree that the dignity of our striking workers is at stake.

I will close by saying that, if we go through the process quickly in the House, then there will be work to do in committee. I hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will rise to the occasion and unite to give our unionized workers their dignity. They have been deserving of this bill for a long time.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for expressing her opinion so clearly, unlike our previous colleague who was having a really hard time getting to the point.

The right to strike can be compromised when an employer is able to use scabs. How will the proposed amendments help all federally regulated workers in Quebec and Canada benefit from a strong right to strike?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sherbrooke is a member from Quebec. She knows full well that unionized workers in Quebec who have a collective agreement have the right to bargain and to strike.

A strike is not the primary outcome in bargaining. Labour tends to avoid striking, using it as a last resort. The last thing a worker wants when they use their tool of last resort is for the employer to have the privilege to say that the employees can go on strike, but it will bring in replacement workers, which it has the right to do as a federally regulated employer.

The bill seeks to fix that, but I strongly encourage my colleague from Sherbrooke, since she is a member from Quebec, to convince her government to remove the clause that provides for an 18‑month delay before the legislation comes into force.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier on we heard two Conservative MPs speak. For 30 minutes or so they had one job, and that was to state whether they were in favour of hiring scabs or not. They refused to do so.

Does my colleague think that the MPs were on strike because they did not want to speak in favour or was this a lockout imposed by the Conservative leader?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this deserves a lot of thought.

It is true that it is disappointing. We have seen our Conservative colleagues do this on a number of issues. I would like to believe that, deep down, the Conservatives from Quebec want to vote in favour of the bill. It is too bad that the boss, the one running the show, does not want that. We have to make major compromises in life when we are in politics. It seems that we even have to ride roughshod over our principles and our hearts, because when we heard the two Conservative members speak, we did not get the feeling they would be supporting the bill.

I still have hope. I am a Sagittarius and therefore an eternal optimist. I sincerely hope that the Conservatives will wake up, get up to speed, modernize and say that this bill is a really good deal for unionized workers.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was all ears when my colleague spoke. I want to tell her about Monday, November 13. I was at the Port of Québec with my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and we met with workers who have been on strike for over 14 months. They confirmed that Conservative MPs from Quebec City have yet to visit them on site. That worries them a great deal, because there are all kinds of polls and deals lurking on the horizon. They are wondering what is going to happen to them.

That is when we came up with the idea of asking the government to cut time as much as possible on this bill so that we can get it passed before it is too late. I would like my colleague to comment on the possibility that we may not persuade the government to shorten the18-month deadline in question. That could potentially leave us with a Conservative government that would pull the plug on this bill.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear. If this bill is not passed and implemented before Christmas, or when the House returns, I share my colleague's opinion that it will never be implemented.

I do not want to be unkind to the government, but we have some concern that it may have introduced the bill only to clear its conscience, thinking that the conditions attached to it would scuttle any chances of the bill being passed. The bill's failure to pass would then come as a relief to the government, which never really wanted it to pass in the first place. It was only putting on a show.

I am relying on the government's Quebec members to flatly refuse to have two categories of union members. We encourage everyone to vote for the bill and, most of all, to shorten the 18-month timeline.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me.

In 1977, 46 years ago, the Government of Quebec passed anti-scab legislation. Anti-scab legislation has been around for as long as I have been alive. It was meant to force employers to negotiate in good faith. Keep in mind that before this legislation was passed, employers had no compunction about hiring new workers while their regular employees were on strike or locked out. Because of this practice, employers had no interest in negotiating to improve working conditions or salaries, since strikes or lockouts had no impact on the company's bottom line.

For 46 years, no strikes or lockouts have dragged out in Quebec, except for those involving federally regulated businesses. It turns out that we have an example of that right now. Over 14 months ago, the Société des arrimeurs de Québec locked out its longshore workers at the Port of Québec. They are not on strike; they are locked out. Because this business's activities fall under federal jurisdiction in Ottawa, it has the right to use scabs, who do not have the required health and safety training. Therefore, every day, they walk right by qualified workers. It is unbelievable that Quebec workers are not protected by the current laws in the area where they live and work, when there have been laws in place for 46 years.

This is another example of Quebec being forward-thinking, compared with the rest of Canada. In the case of the Port of Québec longshore workers, it is not just about protecting these workers, it is also about protecting the public. I would remind the House that scabs have no training in health and safety or in the transshipment of goods. In recent months, there has been an increase in incidents related to red dust and nickel, which pose a danger to the lung health of the people of Beauport—Limoilou and may even reduce their life expectancy in the event of prolonged or repeated exposure.

On top of that, ammonium nitrate is being transported through the Port of Québec. Ammonium nitrate is a product used in fertilizer manufacturing, but it can be highly explosive under certain conditions. The Valero refinery is right across from the Port of Québec in Lévis. A simple spark could lead to a disaster that could extend all the way to Lévis. Hiring scabs, also known as replacement workers to sound better, poses a real danger to the workers themselves, to the surrounding population and to Quebec's economy. If a serious accident were to occur, it could potentially bring operations at the Port of Québec to a halt. In Quebec, 80% of our goods arrive by the river.

The workers are simply asking for better living conditions. If Canada were not 46 years behind Quebec, the lockout at the Port of Québec would never have lasted 14 months.

When the minister replied to me a few weeks ago that anti-scab legislation was going to be introduced, but that it had to be drafted in such a way as to protect the bargaining power of employers at the Port of Vancouver and the Port of Montreal, I was somewhat dubious. How could encouraging employers to negotiate in good faith hurt them?

Quebec's experience shows that anti-scab legislation improves negotiations without giving more leverage to either party. That makes things more equal than they are at the moment. That is a little message for our Conservative friends, although “friends” may be stretching it.

The minister's response a few weeks ago was very telling. The one he gave me today is also very telling. He mentioned Montreal and Vancouver, as if those are the only two ports in Canada. I should point out that a few months ago, the government did not negotiate for long with the Port of Vancouver to get the workers back to work. However, it has never negotiated with the Port of Québec. It is keeping mum and carefully ignoring what is happening in Quebec City, regardless of what the minister is saying today.

Has the government ever had an opportunity to make up for lost time by passing anti-scab legislation? Yes, it has had at least 11 opportunities to do so, and that is just counting Bloc Québécois bills, not even those of the NDP.

When I am told that we need to think about Vancouver and Montreal, that is fine. However, we see that the government is able to move quickly to resolve issues in the rest of Canada, but it does not do the same for Quebec City.

In 2022, two bills were introduced to put an end to the use of scabs, a shameful, unethical practice from another century. The Government of Canada is saying that it is very urgent that we pass anti-scab legislation, but did it move either of those bills up on the schedule? No, it did not. It had to introduce its very own bill. Because of all that, I have a hard time believing that the government really thinks that this is urgent.

Let us look at what the government's Bill C-58 says. We will vote in favour of the bill. There will even be a letter signed by a whole host of academics from across Canada who support the bill. It will be out in a few days. I spoke with some of those academics and they noticed the same flaws that I am going to mention. It is important that we talk about that in committee, so that we can fix as many of the flaws as possible.

For the first flaw, subclause 9(5) states that the employer can use the services of any contractor other than a dependent contractor or any employee of another employer if they were already hired before notice to bargain collectively was given, to perform the same duties as or substantially similar duties to the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit. The services of that contractor or employee can continue to be used in the same way once the strike or lockout is over.

That means that before giving notice to bargain collectively, the employer can hire someone to do the same work as the unionized employee. Of course not a lot of employers are going to say that, since a collective bargaining notice is coming, they are going to hire people and have a surplus of workers, but when there is a lockout they will have enough people. There are not a lot of employers who can afford to have a surplus of labour because that costs a lot of money. Nevertheless, some might see this loophole. This is a flaw that does not respect the spirit of the law. We agree, but there may be some who will try. My advice is to ensure that no employer can use this loophole in Bill C‑58.

The second hitch or problem is that Bill C-58 is not retroactive. This bill will have zero impact on the workers at the Port of Québec. The employer will be able to continue using scabs indefinitely, until its employees are sick and tired of waiting for a job, work and a salary coming in. It just does not make sense. This bill must be retroactive.

Here is the third problem. If an employer has several operating sites, but only one is on strike or locked out, it can take workers from the site that is on strike or locked out and send them to one of the other sites. That is not right. The Quebec law addresses this. An employer cannot transfer employees from one location to another. This should also be included in the Canadian legislation.

Now, let us talk about effective enforcement. That is the fourth problem. It is so urgent to implement this bill that the government wants it to come into force 18 months after it receives royal assent, because the negotiators need a lot of time to sit down at the table and negotiate. It seems that they need training for this.

Take Quebec, for example. It has been an expert in the field for 46 years. Let us calculate the time it takes to complete each step in the process of passing a bill. First reading does not take very long, only a few minutes. Second reading takes a few hours. At the committee stage, things can slow down. Third reading takes a few hours. Then the bill moves on to the Senate for first, second and third readings, committee deliberation, and so on. All that time can add up to weeks, if not months. On top of that, we have to add another 18 months. Is this a joke? No one is going to get me to believe that the negotiator is incapable of sitting down at the table.

That much time is an eternity. All of this leads me to believe that, even though the government calls the situation an emergency, it thinks that workers, especially workers at the Port of Québec, can be easily fooled with smoke and mirrors and will believe anything.

Canada's delay in protecting workers' rights, the flaws in Bill C‑58 and the timelines imposed show that federally regulated workers living in Quebec would be better off if Quebec was an independent country sitting at the table with other nations.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague. I am not sure why, but I feel like talking to her about the end of her speech, which I found interesting.

Here we are, discussing a bill on scabs when a similar bill was passed in Quebec 46 years ago and has been in force ever since. Quebec is the province in Canada with the most social housing, the highest rate of unionization, the highest rate of working women and the lowest rate of child poverty. All this is thanks in part to early childhood centres, which were created by Pauline Marois in the days of the Parti Québécois. Quebec is the province that is most effective at fighting climate change. Quebec is inspiring Canada in a whole host of areas.

I would like to hear more from my colleague. Would we not be better off becoming our own country? Canada could continue to draw inspiration from us once we are on our own.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can only agree with everything my colleague said, of course.

When a nation is independent and uses its power, that only makes it want more because it sees all the potential it has. That is what is happening with Quebec.

Following Quebec's example is no better or worse than following the example of Scandinavian countries, Germany, England, or other countries. Canada would simply have a closer neighbour to emulate, instead of looking for examples on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the response from the Conservatives is a bit surprising. They seem to be more focused on contracts than the legislation.

In recognizing the legislation, the member made reference to the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia, and the federal government is now bringing forward anti-scab legislation. I think that sends a very powerful and positive message to labour in all regions of the country.

Would the member agree that other jurisdictions should look at duplicating what B.C., Quebec and now Ottawa are moving forward with?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, they should definitely follow the example of Quebec and British Columbia.

Ottawa should do so by reducing the time it will take to implement the bill. The 18-month wait makes no sense. We should follow the example of these two provinces because we are currently avoiding negotiations that are not happening.

With anti-scab legislation, both parties are forced to sit down, and it is not true that workers have the upper hand. This gives them leverage that they do not have when there are scabs. The employer also has leverage when it comes to working conditions and wage conditions. The negotiation process is fairer and more equal, and that benefits everyone.