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.

[Wade Sobkowich, Executive Director, Western Grain Elevator Association]

Thank you.

The Western Grain Elevator Association is a national association of grain companies that handle over 90% of our country's bulk grain shipments. Grain transportation makes up roughly 20% of total railway revenue each year, making the WGEA members some of the largest users of Canada's railways and marine ports. Our thanks to you, Madam Chair, and the members of the committee for inviting us on this very important topic.

Canada's ability to compete in global markets hinges on our ability to rail product from the interior of our country to tidewater ports. The efficacy of rail service is therefore a critical component to the success of our supply chains. Air travellers in Canada often experience plane cancellations and delays, missed connections, lost luggage, exorbitant charges and lacklustre travel options. Now imagine there was only one airline available at an airport. That's our reality in rail service.

Above all else, financial accountability and enhanced competitive access regulations for the railways for service performance failures is required. Monetary penalties payable to the shipper for poor service would incentivize railways to put plans in place to avoid them. In addition, measures like extended interswitching that inserts competition creates a threat of loss of business that will drive better rail service.

We also need to recognize the importance of marine ports and vessel traffic to the national economy. With a growing crop, we face the challenge of moving more product each year. This is not a situation of trying to find ways to do more with less. In practical terms, we need to find a way to have more vessels ready to load in the port of Vancouver primarily. It's Canada's largest working port designed for commerce and must first and foremost be viewed through that lens.

Instead, we have Bill C-33 that is going to create a regulated system to restrict the presence of vessels in Canada's ports. Regulators and parliamentarians currently see the presence of vessels in ports and the operation of terminal facilities as a negative. On one hand, we're told Canada wants the economic benefits from exports to worldwide markets, but on the other hand, we're told there are too many vessels in ports and that activities associated with normal vessel loading are a problem.

Bill C-33 only addresses the symptom of vessel wait times, ignoring the root cause of inadequate rail service. If the federal government intends on passing legislation that positively impacts supply chains, it must primarily look at railcar supply from railways versus railcar demand from exporters on a week-to-week basis and introduce legislation that disciplines railways to meet that demand. Opportunity for Canada's exports must be set by customers, not by railways.

Labour disruptions for railway and port services are also hampering Canada's ability to reliably deliver to customers. Canada is about to face a strike on both national railways at the same time, and the consequences are going to be devastating. When strikes or lockouts occur at railways and ports, huge swaths of the economy suffer, not just those in the bargaining process. In a competitive environment, customers can find other options to minimize disruptions. Since railways and ports in the grain sector are singular options, the same threat of loss of business is not present. There are no competitive alternatives.

Whether it's wheat and oats for bakeries or pasta and breakfast cereal manufacturers, or canola and soybeans for vegetable oil, our products are the basis for everyday staple foods. Even short disruptions of supply chains can affect product availability and price, something the pandemic has demonstrated the world over. In this respect, the flow of essential goods necessary for the maintenance and preservation of Canada's domestic food and feed supply and global food security is required even when labour disruptions occur. The requirement for a maintenance of services agreement to be in place prior to a labour stoppage would become automatic with Bill C-58. We believe that parliamentarians should explicitly require these agreements to include movement of essential food products.

The national supply chain task force identified that over the next 50 years, investments of $4.4 trillion in marine and transportation infrastructure will be required to meet the projected growth in population. There is a critical need to step up investment in port infrastructure in Vancouver, especially to address fluidity, particularly with the addition of tanker traffic. There is also an undeniable need for Canada to scrutinize its regulatory and permitting framework, which is unnecessarily rigid, redundant, antiquated and inhibits commercial investments to improve supply chains.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

As the chair, I must rule on the admissibility or inadmissibility of amendments.

This amendment seeks to add a new section 4.1 to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, which is not amended by the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act is not being amended by Bill C-58 it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

That's my ruling.

Are we good? One can challenge it.

Madame Chabot, there can be no discussion. You can only challenge my ruling.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

There is nothing unexpected in this amendment. Nor was there anything earlier.

The purpose of the amendment was to add an investigative process to Bill C-58 like the one in the Quebec legislation.

The unions appeared before us to explain how important it was to be able to investigate. Otherwise, during a strike or lockout, the unions would be completely unable to determine whether or not the employer is contravening the act. An investigative process is therefore important.

Amendment BQ‑4 would allow the Canada Industrial Relations Board to investigate the place of employment together with the union to determine whether the act was being complied with.

This is not just something copied and pasted from the Quebec act, but rather wording adapted from the Canada Labour Code with the assistance of the law clerk.

I believe that this amendment would be a welcome addition to Bill C-58.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Bill C-58 bans employers from using contractors as replacement workers. It's clear.

We won't be supporting this amendment. We just want to make sure that Bill C-58 is clear and doesn't lead to any more issues as we are going down the pike. We thought hard on this one and we can't support it.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

On the subamendment that we proposed, we heard in testimony before the committee that the union is advocating putting a broad ban on replacement workers. They ask that employers be banned from bringing in other employees to work at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place. They also said they wanted to close loopholes by banning volunteers and other non-standard replacement workers. We agree with that part of what our colleague has put forward.

When employers bring employees from other work locations, it could undermine the prohibition by taking the focus away from the bargaining table. When there is a loophole, such as using volunteers, people lose faith in the law, and we don't want that. We want Bill C-58 to work, so we agree with that portion.

However, there are issues with the way the amendment is written when it comes to location. That's why we're happy to support this amendment with the subamendments we have proposed. In the second part, “family member” is difficult to define, and this would affect only the smallest business, but we understand why unions have concerns about volunteers, and that's why banning these volunteers would also create an additional check on the system so that there's no ambiguity about who will volunteer and who gets paid.

Basically what we're looking at is removing “family member” as defined. We agree with most of it, save and except a family member, such as somebody's wife who would come in during a strike. Most of our workplaces under the federally regulated system are larger, so I believe it's covering most of what the NDP put forward, save and except a family member. That's just the subamendment. We agree with everything, save and except including “family member”.

[Ryan Cowling]

Adding paragraph (c) to proposed subsection 94(4) would broaden the scope of the prohibition on replacement workers under the bill. Currently, under Bill C-58, the employers are only prohibited from using their employees if they were hired after a notice to bargain was given in the particular dispute that's in question. What this would do, by my reading, is remove that caveat and say that an employer cannot use any employee to do the work of striking or locked-out bargaining unit members.

[Ryan Cowling]

Thanks, Zia.

I'll try to state it as clearly as possible, but it can get a little esoteric within the industrial relations framework.

Essentially, a dependant contractor is a person who's not in a direct employment relationship with an employer. They don't have a contract with an employer. What they have is a dependence on the employer, both economically and in terms of their working conditions, that makes them so similar to employees that part 1 of the Canada Labour Code treats them as employees.

Under part 1, the definition of “employee” explicitly says that it “includes a dependent contractor”, so any time part 1 of the Canada Labour Code refers to employees, it's also referring to dependant contractors. Similarly, in Bill C-58, where you see the word “employee” appear—such as in the ban on replacement workers in proposed subsection 94(4) and in the ban on employees in the bargaining unit crossing the picket line and performing work during a full strike or lockout in proposed subsection 94(6)—that would also include dependent contractors that are in the bargaining unit.

I hope that clarifies this.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, committee members. We will begin.

The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum. Everybody is appearing in the committee room, so we did not require any sound testing.

I will remind you before we begin about the steps that have been advised that committee members must take to avoid sound issues for the translators. Please keep your earpiece in the allotted spot when you're not using it. If you're not going to use it at all, it is best to keep it unplugged.

As you know, the room layouts have been adjusted to give more spacing to avoid any possible sound issues. Again, keep your earpiece on the allotted location.

Today's meeting is taking place pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 22, 2024. The committee is beginning its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations.

Before I introduce departmental officials, I would advise members that you have the choice to speak in the official language of your choice. If translation services are interrupted, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while they are being clarified.

Appearing in the committee room today, from the Department of Employment and Social Development, are Zia Proulx, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workforce; Katherine Chan, senior policy analyst, workplace and labour relations policy division; and Ryan Cowling, manager, workplace and labour relations policy division. They are here to address any questions the committee members may have related to the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

With that, again, thank you, members.

I apologize; somebody forgot to order breakfast, or we didn't pay for the last one and we're not getting any more. It will be corrected. Ms. Gray has agreed to pay for it if we can't find the funds.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being here. I would have liked to hear your opening remarks, but you can send it to us in writing.

During the study of Bill C‑58, we had the pleasure of hearing from representatives of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. They told us about their staff. I found that quite troubling, personally. I found that the team was quite weak, not in terms of quality, but in terms of the number of employees.

Have you set aside the necessary resources to make Bill C‑58, which is ambitious and which we hope to be able to improve and pass, enforceable?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues.

Minister, thank you for coming.

I will say that it's shocking but great to see this newfound support for Canadian unions and workers from the Conservative Party. It's shocking, but I'm glad to see it.

I want to talk to you, Minister, about Bill C-58. As you know, we just studied Bill C-58. We did hear a lot of great testimony from witnesses that I think really cut through the smoke, if you will, and brought clarity to a lot of myths, particularly the misconception that unions and workers want to strike, that it's what they want to do and that this legislation would potentially impact that.

We had Sean Strickland in from Canada's Building Trades Unions. He said that anybody who suggests that unions want to strike, that it's what they want to do and that they can't wait to get on the picket line, is “not in touch”. They're not in touch with today's economy and labour realities.

We know that this legislation will actually bring people to the bargaining table. You've always said, through many strikes, that the best deals are done at the bargaining table. We know that these are the best deals that happen for workers. I'm wondering if you can expand just a bit on Bill C-58 and why it is so important, and then, in contrast, how right-to-work legislation, which seems to be favoured by the Leader of the Opposition, could be detrimental to workers.

Thanks, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Thank you everyone.

That will conclude the first hour of the committee's meeting this morning. It will also conclude the witness testimony on Bill C-58.

We'll suspend for a few moments and then go in camera for the business portion of this meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Carey, Madame Brazeau, Mr. Ghiz and Mr. Smith, for appearing this morning on this important piece of legislation.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe this is the last time we'll be meeting with witnesses for our study on Bill C-58.

In order to be historic and do what it's supposed to—prohibit the use of replacement workers—the bill actually has to come into force. It makes no sense that the bill won't come into force until 18 months after it receives royal assent. That doesn't even include how long it will take for it to receive royal assent. What a joke to tell unionized employees who work for Videotron, the Quebec City port and other such employers that, even though the bill was passed, it won't come into force for 18 months. If the government is serious about this legislation, it has to allocate all the resources required for implementation.

Workers' right to strike, a fundamental right protected by the charters, is at stake. However, it will be a long time before all these legislative improvements come into force, improvements that will lead to disputes truly being resolved. As the only explanation, the minister stated clearly that the time frame had been recommended by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We find that totally unacceptable.

What's more, of course strikes cause disruptions, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. It's important to respect the parties to the dispute. When employers use replacement workers, as Videotron has, they aren't respecting the issues. During a lockout, the employer can organize, contract out the work and move call centres outside the country. That is the reality. On top of that, good jobs are lost.

Mr. Ghiz, we are well aware of how important the telecommunications sector is, as are other sectors that deliver essential services. However, does that justify telling workers that it doesn't matter if they want to exercise their right to strike because they can be replaced anyways?

[Dave Carey]

We haven't, not to that degree. I can say that the agriculture sector does have provisions. The longshoremen are prohibited from striking because over the years it was used as leverage, and then Minister MacAulay, in labour, in 1998 amended that. Again, I think the agriculture sector's view is similar to the telecoms' view, which is not about replacing workers. It's about allowing current staff within, say, the railways, to continue to keep the lights on.

I think our view on Bill C-58 is that you do need to take a sector-by-sector approach when allocating through these sorts of blanket bills. We don't have a position on collective bargaining. We respect the unions' abilities to do things. However, we are seeing Canada's reputation challenged globally, with the current legislative framework we have, about our ability to get agriculture products to market.

Agriculture is one in nine jobs, 7% of GDP and $99 billion in exports last year alone. I guess our concern is that BillC-58 would more instability with Bill , but again, our comments would be within the agriculture sector and also within the abilities of the railways, the grain companies and the ports to use current staff, whether they're management or non-unionized, to keep the lights on. Replacement workers can't jump on a railcar and run the thing. They just can't. That's where major labour instability is. We are concerned about the trend of labour instability in our grain supply chains.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

We also heard from one of the witnesses, Charles Smith—I think last week—who is a professor out in Saskatchewan. He had a very compelling argument that traditionally in today's society, employers have always had a bit of an advantage over employees. He talked about how industry groups in general have shied away from bills like this and made the argument that a bill like this could prolong strikes. He presented some evidence in regard to Quebec and B.C. having this type of legislation in place and made the argument and presented it to us that there would actually be fewer strikes when legislation like Bill C-58 is put in place.

Mr. Carey, has your industry group done any research to support the claim that a bill like Bill C-58 could potentially cause more disruption, versus the claim Mr. Smith has made, which is that it actually reduces disruption by creating “industrial peace”, as he referred to it, and creating a better balance between employers and employees?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today as we study this important and historic bill.

I have a comment to start. Mr. Ghiz, your presentation was rather bold, if not provocative. You said that Bill C-58 sought to address a problem that did not exist. I take issue with that.

The dockworkers at the Quebec City port have been locked out for the past 18 months, and every day, they see people taking their jobs and pay. Situations like that aren't limited to ports. They also happen in telecommunications. Sitting behind you, Mr. Ghiz, are four Videotron employees who have been locked out for nearly six months in Gatineau, and replacement workers have been brought in to do their jobs. This is a real problem. In fact, I kindly encourage you to go up to them after the meeting, to talk to them about their situation and find out what the labour dispute is like for them. They have been out on the street for nearly six months.

Ms. Brazeau, you said you couldn't presume what Parliament would decide with respect to the bill. I agree, but since all parties in the House voted in favour of Bill C-58 at second reading, it will probably end up being passed, unless the tide turns and things change significantly.

Is the Canada Industrial Relations Board getting ready for the bill's potential passage?