44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the speech I started the day before yesterday to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-58. For the first time, the federal government is proposing anti-scab legislation for all workers governed by the Canada Labour Code, so, workers under federal jurisdiction, who represent 10% of the country's labour force.
This is a very important debate. This bill is important because it is historic. For generations, labour activists who support workers' rights have been fighting to have the government uphold workers' fundamental right to strike, to ensure that during a labour dispute employers can no longer use replacement workers, to use the polite term, or scabs, to put it bluntly.
This is a big day. We need to emphasize the importance of the step that is being taken today. We will continue to exert pressure so that this bill is improved in committee and passed. Obviously, some aspects of the bill need to be improved, but the fact that the government has introduced such a bill for the first time in history is a good sign.
Over the years, the NDP has introduced a number of anti-scab bills, nine of them, I think, in the past 10 or 12 years. I introduced a bill last year to give the Liberal government a helping hand and point it in the right direction. We managed to hold discussions and make some progress. Today, we have something interesting to look at.
It could make a huge difference for tens of thousands of people. We wish this legislation had come along sooner, because people are suffering now without it. We want to fix the problem so that painful situations like these never happen again.
I get pretty disheartened when organizations like the Conseil du patronat du Québec, Quebec's council of employers, tell us that this bill is not relevant or necessary right now. There are still people on picket lines or locked out who see replacement workers take their place during a labour dispute. That was the case until very recently. It has psychological consequences for workers and it impacts the balance of power between management and unions. It also has very serious and significant consequences for families going through extremely tense times.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec says this is not relevant or timely, but that is simply not the case. Just think about Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy, which was in a labour dispute two years ago, if memory serves me correctly. The workers were replaced by scabs. A small team of 12 or 14 employees was replaced. It took longer and it was more difficult to resolve the problem because replacement workers were brought in.
Let us also not forget the longshore workers at the Port of Québec, who have been locked out for 14 months now. They were kicked out by their own employer, who refused to negotiate in good faith. Because of the lack of legislative measures in the Canada Labour Code, employers can hire replacement workers or scabs. This means that, for the past 14 months, 81 longshore workers have seen people take their place every day on the job site, even though those folks do not have the necessary skills, cause a bunch of accidents and destroy equipment.
It upsets the balance of power and undermines the possibility of reaching a reasonable settlement that works for both parties when replacement workers are given the job and perform the tasks of workers who are out on strike or, in the case of the Quebec longshore workers, are locked out. It is even worse in this case, because this was not their choice. Workers just want decent working conditions. In this case, it is not even about money. It is more about work-life balance and having more humane working hours.
This is happening now. We are not talking about 50 years ago, we are not talking about Murdochville, we are not talking about past battles. We are talking about what is happening right now, today. The situation with the longshore workers at the Port de Québec is tough. It is not the only one and may not be the last, unfortunately.
Now there is a dispute at Videotron, in Gatineau. Again, this is a federally regulated sector. We talked about sports. We could also talk about airports or the rail sector. Here we are talking about telecommunications, another federally regulated sector. It is possible that replacement workers are taking the jobs of the unionized workers in Videotron's west sector, in Gatineau. This would make it much harder to reach a settlement, to get a good contract for the employees.
I want to come back to the example of Videotron because it is an interesting one. Videotron is owned by Pierre Karl Péladeau, who is proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the legislative advances made by his province. Quebec was the first province to implement anti-scab legislation in 1977. British Columbia followed suit several years later. If Pierre Karl Péladeau respects the spirit of the law in Quebec, then he should not use replacement workers in his own company. We will see what happens with Videotron in Gatineau, but I want to make it clear that when workers organize to collectively defend their rights and improve their working conditions, which is well within their rights to do, there has to be a balance of power. For years, that balance of power did not exist. For example, unions were prohibited in Canada until 1872. They were illegal.
It was a crime to collectively organize in order to defend a group's rights and try to improve pay or work organization. It really is thanks to the work of generations of union activists that we have been able to achieve better working conditions. In fact, if we look closely, we realize that before unions emerged and took action, spearheading major battles, there really was no middle class. There were extremely rich owners and extremely poor workers. The workers merely survived, trying to work hard and provide for their children so that these children could take their place in the factory and continue to ensure profits and added value for the owners of the means of production.
It took the courage and action of generations of workers, men and women, who stood up and decided that they had to fight together to lift themselves out of misery and poverty, to get good paycheques, good working conditions and benefits. In fact, the union movement created the middle class. There was no middle class before. It did not exist. In the 19th century there was no middle class. People were either very rich or very poor. Workers struggled to survive under horrific health and safety conditions.
The goal was to establish a balance of power at the bargaining table and negotiate with management, with the employer, to tell them that workers wanted their share of the profits and to live with dignity. There would be no profits without all these workers doing their jobs in factories to produce the goods and services sold. This was how the middle class got its start and managed to rise above poverty and misery. Finally, middle class workers could buy a house, have a pension, look forward to retirement and get insurance and benefits.
That is how we were able to create a middle class in Quebec and Canada, as well as in the United States, of course, France and England.
The problem with not having anti-scab legislation is that the balance of power at the bargaining table is completely undermined. Going on strike essentially sends a message to the employer that production is being halted and that there will be an economic impact arising from this work stoppage, since the product can no longer be sold on the market. If production continues because replacement workers can be hired to keep doing the work, the balance of power at the bargaining table has just been destroyed. It is all well and good for the employer to say that employees can go on strike for as long as they like and that it is not the employer's problem, because, in any case, production and service will continue, the employer will continue to make money, revenue will come in, and there is no problem.
This destroys the workers' bargaining power and drags out the labour disputes. The employer has no incentive to reach an agreement with the union to provide good or acceptable working conditions to its workers. This also creates more tension, which can lead to violence. Imagine being a worker on the picket line every morning who sees someone go in to take their place, their salary and keep the business in operation. Frustration and anger run high. In the past we have seen violent acts and interpersonal conflicts that are totally understandable.
That is why, for hundreds of thousands of workers at the federal level, it is important to have this legislation that will simply provide balance at the bargaining table. Such legislation has existed in Quebec since 1977 in every sector in Quebec, of which there are very many. We are talking about 90% of the labour force. This also exists in British Columbia and the sky has not fallen. Economic development has carried on. In fact, the labour disputes have been fewer, shorter and less violent. That is good for everyone.
Some members of the House use the term “common sense” a lot. I think that anti-scab legislation is just common sense. We are not trying to dictate what workers' wages, working conditions or contracts will look like. We just want to give workers a chance to exercise their constitutional rights and to be in a position where they can use their balance of power, have a say at the bargaining table and negotiate a good employment contract.
I began working as a union representative for the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 2002. Two weeks later, the labour dispute at Videotron began. What I saw 20 years ago is the impact of the employer being able to use replacement workers, or scabs, and just how much that served to prolong the dispute. I was happy to be working with that union, but it was a long, hard battle. In the end, the union was successful. The technicians stayed in the union. However, it is important to avoid this type of situation in the future, like the situations at the Port of Québec and Videotron in Gatineau right now. We must ensure that there is an equal balance of power. It is a matter of fairness. We are not trying to favour one side over the other. These are fundamental rights that must be defended.
I am extremely proud of the fact that the NDP leveraged its strength in Parliament to help workers. I was talking about balance of power at the bargaining table, but we used our balance of power in Parliament. From the very beginning of talks on the agreement we have with the minority Liberal government, the leader of the NDP made it clear that this was an essential condition. After years of struggle, we absolutely had to have anti-scab legislation at the federal level.
I think this is an extremely important step. This direct gain is attributable to the work of the NDP caucus, my NDP colleagues and the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South. He forced the Liberals to introduce anti-scab legislation even though the Liberals have always been against it. Every time we introduced anti-scab legislation, the Liberals voted against it. I think they have seen the light, but I also think they did not have much choice. We twisted their arm a bit and, in the end, thanks to the influence of the NDP caucus and all my colleagues, we are going to get it done.
However, some obstacles remain and some aspects of the bill require improvement. My colleagues and I look forward to sending the bill to committee for improvement. One rather major obstacle right now is the time it will take to implement the bill. A second reading, a review in committee and a third reading will take time. After that the Senate will also be doing its part.
The bill states that its implementation will take 18 months. This is a major irritant for the NDP. Eighteen months is far too long. We fail to understand why it would take that long for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to adjust to the new legislative measure. We think that it might take 12 months or maybe even six months. We will therefore be applying pressure in committee to shorten the implementation time provided for this bill in light of its importance and urgency to a number of sectors of our economy. It will open the door to good working conditions for the people we represent, make room for good employment contracts and good salaries, and improve the situation of just about everyone in the country.
I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.
2226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-58 as a substantial piece of legislation that will make a wonderful difference for the labour movement, but not only the labour movement. I think we get lost in this in the sense that it is in the best interests of all, whether for labour or employers. I genuinely believe that. It is something I have been advocating for for many years.
My question for my colleague is in regard to the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. They have had this, in particular Quebec for many years now. Could he again reinforce the benefits that those two provinces have received by having back-to-work legislation? What are his thoughts in regard to why it is important that other provincial jurisdictions follow suit now that we have two provinces and the national government moving forward on anti-scab legislation?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 10:26:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a huge difference between back-to-work legislation and anti-scab legislation. I am happy that my colleague rectified his wording at the end of his question.
Reducing the number of labour disputes has helped a lot in Quebec and British Columbia. It has been good for everyone: employees, employers and society in general. The vast majority of collective agreements—97% or 98%, I believe—are resolved without a labour dispute, strike or lockout.
Experience has taught us that, when there is a labour dispute in Quebec or British Columbia, the average time it takes to resolve it is less than when replacement workers or scabs are involved. That is good news for everyone. Quebec paved the way and British Columbia followed.
I think it is now time for the federal government to set an example and ensure that we have anti-scab legislation that will make a difference for all of society, reduce tensions and reduce the duration of labour disputes in our country. I think that is good news for everyone.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 10:29:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his question and comment. No one wants to see violence, people getting hurt or killed, in the context of labour disputes. That is absolutely appalling and has to be avoided. It is also true that in small communities, when everyone knows everyone else, it is even more difficult. Just think of the period after the labour dispute is resolved.
During a labour dispute, it is hard for workers to see someone coming in every day and getting their pay even though those workers still have to pay for their house and feed and clothe their children. There is a lot of anger and resentment when workers see someone basically stealing their pay. In a small community, when everyone knows everyone else, it is even more appalling. It can go on for years and years. We need to avoid that.
We need to avoid situations like the lockout of longshore workers at the Port of Québec, which has been going on for 14 months. The Vidéotron people in western Quebec may well go through the same thing today. We need to resolve this problem as quickly as possible. Federal anti-scab legislation has been needed for decades. It is time to act.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 10:54:32 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is about regulating the industry. At the end of the day, I do not have a problem comparing labour negotiations to those of the federal government today. Over the last number of years, compared to Stephen Harper's time, we see there has been a great deal of collective bargaining and agreements signed off on. It is virtually night and day.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 11:43:13 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we did study the Bloc Québécois proposal and discuss it with certain stakeholders in the cultural sector.
Unfortunately, the $50‑million emergency fund that the Bloc was proposing will not solve the problem. What will solve the problem in the long term is modernized legislation, which we delivered. The enhanced labour tax credit program, which we modified in the fall economic statement, will also help our newsrooms.
We will continue to look at all the solutions. However, one thing everyone in the cultural sector knows is that the Conservatives would have done nothing. They also know that our government has taken action since coming to power in 2015.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:18:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I trade barbs back and forth, in good nature, with the member for Winnipeg North all the time. I will point out to him, though, that in his speech he talked about how replacement workers were a cause of the 1919 strike. The Canadian Labour Congress website has no mention of replacement workers. What it does state is that a big cause of the strike was inflation.
I am wondering if the member could tell the House how much the Liberal-induced inflation right now is causing the need for the legislation he is promoting.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:21:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when Labour Day comes every year, I am part of the millions of Canadians who really think about what it means and what the hard-fought labour rights represent. How can this legislation further protect the sacred right to strike in this nation?
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:22:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I believe it is in recognition of the importance of the free collective bargaining system and the importance of the bargaining table.
At the end of the day, when we think of labour rights, ultimately labour harmony is good for all of us. One of the things I would like to emphasize, as this is my last answer, is for us to think of the social impact that labour has had here in Canada from coast to coast to coast, which has been tremendously positive.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.
I stand before the House today to discuss Bill C-58, a piece of legislation concerning the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. This bill, brought forth by the Minister of Labour and Seniors, is a clear product of the NDP-Liberal coalition's agenda. While it is important to look at the contents of the bill, it is also very much of equal importance to look at how the NDP-Liberal coalition is hurting workers they claim they are helping.
In this debate, we must be mindful of the delicate balance between protecting workers' rights and maintaining a healthy, competitive business environment. It is our duty to examine how this bill fits into the larger narrative of the current Liberal government's failed policies, which have wide-reaching effects on the Canadian workforce and the overall economic landscape. As representatives of the Canadian people, we have a responsibility to evaluate this legislation not just in isolation but within the context of its potential impact on our nation's prosperity and the well-being of its citizens.
In recent years, we have witnessed an escalating trend in labour disputes across Canada, with a staggering total of 269 major work stoppages. They include both lockouts and strikes in just the past two years. This disturbing rise in labour unrest is a direct consequence of the current Liberal government's policies over the last eight years.
The Prime Minister's inflationary policies have significantly contributed to this turmoil, leaving workers in a dangerous position, struggling just to make ends meet. The harsh reality is that Canadian workers are increasingly finding themselves backed into a corner. The cost of living has skyrocketed, eroding the purchasing power of their wages. Many feel that demanding higher wages is their only remedy to keep pace with the escalating costs.
This sense of desperation is a clear indication of the government's failure in handling labour relations effectively. The policies enacted have not only failed to alleviate the pressures on Canadian workers but have actively made their lives harder, fuelling discontent and unrest in the workforce.
This situation calls for urgent attention and a re-evaluation of the government's approach to the inflationary policies that make life more unaffordable. It is crucial that we address the root causes of these issues rather than merely applying temporary fixes. The government must take responsibility for the current state of labour relations in Canada and work toward sustainable solutions that truly support and uplift the working class.
In continuing to address the current state of affairs under the NDP-Liberal government, it is important to highlight how these policies are intensifying the hardships faced by Canadian workers. A prime example is the carbon tax, which has resulted in a significant increase in costs across the board. This tax, far from being a simple environmental measure, has had a domino effect, affecting everything from transportation to the cost of basic needs. The burden of these increased expenses is disproportionately put on the working class, who find their paycheques stretched thinner every day.
Moreover, the housing crisis under the NDP-Liberal government has reached a critical point. Housing costs have not just risen; they have doubled. The situation is made worse by mortgage payments, which are now 150% higher than they were when Harper was prime minister. This financial strain is pushing Canadian families to the brink, with over 50% living within $200 of insolvency.
The reality is that the Liberals, now hand in hand with the NDP, have long abandoned the workers they claim to represent. Their policies, rather than offering relief, have contributed to the reality where everyday Canadians struggle to afford the basic costs of living. This abandonment is not just a failure of economic policy but a betrayal of the trust that workers place in their government to safeguard their interests and well-being.
The implications of these policies are far-reaching and deeply concerning. They paint a picture of a government disconnected from the realities faced by its citizens, especially the working class.
The recent revelation concerning the Stellantis battery plant is a striking example of the government's mismanagement and lack of transparency. It has come to light that 1,600 foreign replacement workers will be employed at the facility, a project funded by Canadian taxpayers to the tune of $15 billion. Even yesterday, we learned that up to 900 foreign replacement workers will help build the NextStar battery plant in Windsor. The fundamental question is why these jobs, created with Canadian money, are not being offered to Canadian workers.
This situation is unacceptable. It is a glaring injustice that Canadian taxpayers are financing projects that fail to prioritize their employment. The Prime Minister's office has been silent on the details of the massive corporate subsidies granted to electric vehicle battery plants. The recent revelations by the Parliamentary Budget Officer have only intensified concerns, indicating that the actual costs and implications are far more substantial than initially presented by the Prime Minister.
Moreover, Canadian workers and taxpayers deserve full transparency. Is the Prime Minister planning to use taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers at other facilities, such as the Volkswagen and Northvolt plants? This lack of clarity should be especially concerning for my Quebec colleagues, who might see jobs in their region being outsourced to foreign workers, potentially at the Northvolt plant located in the Bloc leader’s own riding.
If the Prime Minister truly cared about Canadian workers, as the bill suggests, he would disclose the contracts signed with Stellantis, Volkswagen and Northvolt. Canadians have a right to know the financial obligations they are under and the specific job provisions guaranteed for Canadian workers. The Prime Minister should have already ensured that Canadian tax dollars would be funding jobs for Canadian workers, not the employment of foreign workers.
Common-sense Conservatives are committed to ensuring that Canadian tax dollars are utilized justly and that the jobs they help create are indeed available for Canadians. The current situation is a stark reminder of the need for responsible governance that would place Canadian interests and workers at the forefront. We will continue to demand transparency and accountability from the government to ensure that Canadian workers are not sidelined in their own country.
Bill C-58 looks at dealing with the worsening labour relations across Canada, but the real issue stems from the NDP-Liberal government, which has made life unaffordable for the average Canadian worker. The reality faced by Canadian workers today is one of escalating costs, reduced purchasing power and missed employment opportunities, despite significant taxpayer investments. The introduction of foreign replacement workers in key taxpayer-funded projects such as the Stellantis battery plant symbolizes the government's disconnect from the needs and rights of Canadian labour.
The Conservative Party stands firmly with Canadian workers. We advocate for transparency, accountability and, above all, ensuring that Canadians are first in line for jobs created with their hard-earned tax dollars. It is time for the government to stop neglecting these vital principles. Canadian workers deserve a government that champions their cause, protects their interests and utilizes taxpayer funds to actually benefit Canadians. That is the commitment of the Conservative Party, and we will relentlessly pursue this goal in the interests of all Canadians.
1237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:32:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. A lot of his speech was talking about temporary foreign workers.
Many places across Canada, such as my riding of Sydney—Victoria, rely on temporary foreign workers where there are labour shortages. The Victoria Co-operative brings in many temporary foreign workers to work in the fish plants in the northern Cape Breton area because they cannot get people to travel there.
In Canada, we believe that diversity is strength. I am wondering if the member opposite is a little concerned about the narrative that the Conservatives continue to use that really focuses on foreign workers. Does the member not feel that the narrative is creating unnecessary hate and division between Canadians at a time when we are trying to bring Canadians together?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wish the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-58, was unnecessary. As someone who values the work of labour unions, a person who appreciates the historic impact they have had on improving the rights and working conditions of Canadian workers, I feel it is sad that we have to consider whether replacement workers should be allowed in federally regulated workplaces.
The use of replacement workers comes about when either a unionized workforce has gone on strike or an employer has locked out its workers. In either case, there are no real winners, so what would bring workers or employers to such a position? Why would they feel it necessary to take such drastic measures if nobody wins in such a situation? The answer is simple. If it seems that Canada has seen more labour strife than at any other time in recent history, the reason is simple. The policies of the Liberal government have made it difficult for Canadian workers to make ends meet.
Workers expect government to look out for their best interests. We have a government that apparently does not understand what is good for people. We see record inflation, food prices spiralling out of control and the dream of home ownership dying for millions of Canadians. Those who are lucky enough to find a place to rent have discovered that rents have also skyrocketed. What is the Liberals' response to these economic problems? Its response includes inflationary deficits and higher taxes, government spending that seems out of control, the highest national debt in the history of Canada and no ideas of how to fix the mess they have created. When the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything for everyone, housing costs have doubled, mortgage costs are 150% higher than they were before the Liberal government took office and half of Canadians say that they are $200 or less from going broke, it is no wonder workers feel abandoned by the government.
The Conservative Party supports the rights of workers to organize democratically, bargain collectively and peacefully withdraw and withhold their services from an employer. We also believe the government should work with unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to develop dispute settlement mechanisms and encourage their use to avoid or minimize disruption to services for Canadians. Bill C-58 will apply to about one million workers in federally regulated industries, many of which are sectors that are critical to national life. For this reason alone, it is important to study this legislation at committee to hear from witnesses, both those who are in favour and those who are against the legislation, to allow members to better understand the implications of this bill.
I am sure the Liberals will tell me that such a study is not really necessary, that they know what they are doing and that this legislation should be passed with a minimum of scrutiny. After all, the Liberals tell us they know what is best for the country, but anyone who questions their dogma, they view as a heretic. In the church that is the Liberal Party, I would be a heretic. I have seen too many Liberal ministers telling Canadians that they know what is best for them when they obviously do not. The government would like us to believe that the Liberals are infallible, but all too often the truth is that they do not have a clue what they are doing. That may be true also with this bill.
I would think that unions would view Bill C-58 as correcting a tilted playing field that has been in favour of employers. They expect that, once this act is passed, the strikes and lockouts will be shorter. In the same way, I would think employers would see Bill C-58 as favouring unions, with the potential of prolonged strikes and lockouts. These are conflicting viewpoints, and whichever one we might adopt may depend on our view of the current balance of power between unions and employers.
Our job in the House is to find a way to craft legislation that is fair to both workers and employers, which is another reason to ensure that we consider the bill carefully so we do not have to return to the subject to fix mistakes made by a rushed process. When the minister spoke in the House just a couple of days ago, he said that consideration of the bill would not be rushed and that it is one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen. I am glad he sees the need for a long and hard examination of the proposed legislation. We all want more deals to be made at the bargaining table. Strikes and lockouts are harmful to workers, employers and the Canadian economy as a whole. The Liberals seem to think that the bill would result in fewer labour disruptions. It will be interesting to hear what witnesses say when Bill C-58 is examined at committee.
One of the areas that may be contentious is allowing employers to hire replacement workers as long as they deal solely with the situation that presents or could reasonably be expected to present an imminent or serious threat. Those threats could be to the life, health or safety of any person; destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises. Allowing replacement workers in such situations seems reasonable. The problem I foresee is one of determining exactly what the situations are when such hiring would be allowed. I would expect unions would quite naturally attempt to limit the use of replacement workers, while employers would try to stretch the definition as much as possible, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe employers and unions alike would be reasonable in all situations and there would be a clear understanding of what represents a safety threat, property damage or environmental damage.
More likely, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would find itself much busier if this legislation is passed, as it tries to work out the details of the legislation in practice as opposed to in theory. No one, not workers, not employers and not the public, likes labour disruptions. In an ideal world, they would not happen. Of course, in an ideal world, workers would not have to worry about having to make a choice between paying the rent and paying for groceries. In an ideal world, Canadians would not be wondering why their government was offering tax exemptions on one form of home heating fuel and not on the others that contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions. In an ideal world, food bank use would be decreasing instead of increasing, and Canadians would not have to worry whether they can afford the ever-increasing cost of food.
However, under the current government, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where the Liberal carbon tax keeps going up, increasing the cost of everything. Canadian workers and employers alike are feeling squeezed by a government that has shown by its fiscal policies that it does not care about either of them. Unions and businesses may have differing views about Bill C-58, but they do have one thing in common: They all know that it is time for the Liberal government to go.
1241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 12:46:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started his speech by saying that a bill to ban replacement workers was unnecessary. That really speaks to the Conservatives' view on labour rights and their track record in the past under the Harper government. The bill before us is a bill that would allow workers to stand up and be able to receive powerful paycheques.
Conservatives say they stand up for workers, but when it comes time to vote, why are they always on the other side of workers?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-58, a very important piece of legislation. It was a commitment made by both the Liberals and the NDP in the last election, something we have been able to work together on in order to bring forward legislation to the House so we could provide a better environment for workers to be able to negotiate new contracts or re-negotiate existing contracts with employers. That is what the bill seeks to do.
We know that when there are individuals who want to go on strike, they are usually doing it for a fairly important reason. They are sometimes doing it because their wages are not reflecting the reality of what they believe they should be paid. They are doing it because they are worried about the conditions in which they are working. They are doing it because they are worried about job security and what their employers are providing for them.
We know that when they do make the decision to go on strike, which does and, quite frankly, should happen from time to time in order to properly demonstrate the need and the requirement to change working conditions, it has to be taken very seriously.
The employer's having the opportunity to bring in scab labour, replacement workers who are there while negotiating, significantly takes away from the employer's ability to negotiate in good faith. Think about that for a second. What if someone were on the management side of a firm and had to negotiate, and the only thing being held against them was the ability of people to strike? What if, at the same time, they had the opportunity to bring people in to replace the workers while management was in the process of negotiating with the striking employees? Management would not face the same realities that those who are on strike would.
When a union decides to go on strike, extreme hardships can be felt by the employees. They are not paid anymore. Sometimes they are given small stipends from their union, but it is nowhere near what they would be making normally. They are taking on hardships in order to stand up for their rights. If an employer has the opportunity to negotiate while having replacement or scab labour in place, they are going to be negotiating from a much more comfortable position in terms of their ability to continue to function. While employees have the hardships imposed upon them through either a strike or a lockout, in the same vein, we have to make sure that the negotiating position is balanced. That is done by ensuring that employers have to feel the same kind of pain, for lack of a better expression. They have to be faced with the same reality that if they do not get to a deal quickly, they cannot continue to function in their business in the manufacturing sector or whatever it might be. As a result, they have to be motivated.
We know that the best deals are those that are made at the bargaining table. We know that when we can encourage, through various different pieces of legislation, both sides to sit down and work out a deal, it will produce the best result for everybody. It can be a messy process, and we have seen that time and time again through the history of this country, in terms of organized labour. It can be messy when people are striking. Just yesterday, I was driving through Quebec and saw a number of people protesting in a strike that was ongoing there.
This is part of the process. It is about bringing to the attention of the employer that there is a significant need for the employee that is not being addressed by the employer. That is why the best deals are those that are made at the table by bringing the two parties together to be able to do that. That is why the legislation before us would specifically prohibit employers from using the following workers from doing the work of striking or locked out employees: first, new hires, such as employees and managers hired after notice to bargain collectively is given; and, second, contractors, regardless of when they were hired.
The bill also seeks to prohibit employers from using the services of employees in a bargaining unit when that bargaining unit is in a full strike or lockout where all employees in the unit are expected to stop working. I think this is really important, because a union's strength is in its unity and membership. Unions operate in a democratic fashion. They elect their leadership, which is there to represent them; it is critically important to ensure that some who might not have voted in favour are still subject to the leadership that they have democratically elected. I can see how it might be tempting otherwise for individuals to do this, but again, at the end of the day, we know that the best deals are those that are made at the table and not by the influences that come from using outside forms of labour in the meantime. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. I will not get into detail, but they relate primarily to health and safety and environmental impacts on the property of the employer.
However, this bill also seeks to ensure that, if unions believe that an employer is violating a ban, they may complain to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This is an independent administrative tribunal whose job is to resolve workplace disputes and certain appeals that arise under the Criminal Code, among other acts. The board can investigate, and if it agrees with the complaint, order the employer to stop the violation. It is also really important that a hefty fine comes along with this to further discourage the employer from moving toward this kind of action. It sets out a maximum fine of $100,000 per day if the employer is prosecuted and convicted of violating the prohibition. Members can see that the intent of the bill is really to put as many measures in place to prevent these activities of employing scab or replacement workers for the purposes of, once again, ensuring that people get to the bargaining table and having meaningful discussions there.
One other thing I want to address, and perhaps I pre-empt a question from my NDP colleagues, is that NDP members have been steadfast in their support for the bill. However, they have said that they forced the government to do this; I do not quite look at it like that. We did run on this. It is on page 22 of our last election platform, but it may have been slightly different. We may have worked on this in a way with the NDP to make the bill even stronger, which is great. That is what this entire process is about. Our Westminster parliamentary system is based on the idea that, if one party does not form a majority, we work with other political parties to develop strategies and policies that we can bring forward on behalf of the Canadian people, in our case anyhow. That is what we are seeing.
Therefore, I think that the NDP should rightfully take credit for some of this, as they have done good work on it. I also think that the government has done extremely good work on it, and the Liberal Party has been committed to it as well. I hear that call from the NDP, but I respectfully disagree that it was forced. Nobody forced anybody to do anything. This was one of the terms of that agreement that we came to in order to work together in a productive manner.
To that end, I am very glad that there is another political party in this room made up of adults, when it comes to doing meaningful things for the people we represent. I would say two, one of which is the Bloc. It is not always just about saying no, because the objective is to be an obstructionist at any cost. The objective is genuine in this agreement. I quite often see a genuine objective from the Bloc as well to advance better policy, ideas and legislation for the people we individually represent.
However, I am very concerned, once again, about the lack of clarity on this issue from my colleagues on the other side of the House, the Conservatives. They have given a couple of speeches on this. They were asked a direct question just moments ago by my NDP colleague about whether they will support the bill. They skate around it, they do not answer, they give vague statements, they are not concrete on it and they will not even say that they will support the bill to get to committee, which is just an initial step.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: They are heckling me now.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will not even say that they will support it just to get it to committee where they want to do this work. We heard the member for Edmonton Manning say that just moments ago. They want to have a thorough discussion and thorough examination; a lot of that happens at committee.
Will they support getting it to committee? I raise this because it is an important observation. We have seen this happen a couple times now with the Conservatives, especially since September, where they are very non-committal on an issue. When they do get up and speak about it, like the bill we were debating yesterday, they do not even mention the issue at hand. Thankfully, they are at least talking about workers in this context. What do they do next? They vote against it.
Where did we see that recently? With the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The Conservatives never committed, in all the speeches that they gave in this House, to what their position was. Then one by one, they stood up and voted against Ukraine and showed exactly who they were. They are not going to get away with that. The Canadian people are going to know how they voted and the Canadian people do know.
In the news cycle yesterday, there was a lot of talk about the Leader of the Opposition, his right-wing politics and where he is going, where he is taking this party, by even some of the most Conservative pundits out there who write opinion pieces on the position of the Conservative Party. There is this fake notion of a price on pollution, when it clearly states in the agreement that no particular country's environmental policies can impact another country. They look for these red herrings to be able to do this.
We did not let them get away with that. If the Conservatives' plan again this time is to just skate around the issue of workers, stand up and say that they support workers, that they are there with workers until the end and that they will always support workers, but then turn around and vote for it when it is time to vote, we are going to report that back to Canadians. I am sure my colleagues in the NDP are going to help us do that.
Canadians deserve to know where the Conservatives stand. When they get up in this House and talk about an issue, they need to be able to say they support it or they do not support it. They cannot any longer get away with the rhetoric we hear from across the way and the approach they have been taking.
I am very happy to tell members that I will be supporting this. I want to see this go to committee. I know there have already been a couple issues brought up, I think, in good faith, that can be discussed at committee. The committee can look into the issue to make even better legislation. The idea that we are going to be able to just stand up and talk about how amazing Conservatives have been for workers when the record does not come anywhere near to reflecting that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I do not know why they would clap for that.
Mr. Speaker, their record is not anywhere near reflective of that. The reality is that the vast majority of Canadians know that Conservatives do not support workers. They support big corporations and that has always been their MO. They come from the position of trickle-down economics from the Ronald Reagan era. As long as they make things better for the most wealthy, as long as they make things better for the corporations and as long as they strip more taxes from corporations, they swear it is going to trickle down to the workers. Workers are going to be impacted by that and they will be so much better off as a result.
We know that Reagan economics failed. We know that it has only, over the last several decades, contributed to a wider gap between the haves and the have-nots. That is why we need meaningful legislation, like we have before us today, that will force the employer to come to the bargaining table under the same conditions as the employee, which is the condition of fighting for their job, for job security, for fair wages and for benefits from their employer. Just like we expect an employee to do that, we need to expect the employer is going to come with the same restrictions and the same hardships associated to them if they do not negotiate in good faith.
I am glad to see this legislation has come forward. I am really happy we are able to work with our colleagues in the NDP to make this a reality. I am going to cut my comments off there because I think that will give more time to one of my NDP colleagues later down the road.
2356 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 1:14:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding that has a lot of public sector employees and a lot of people who are impacted directly or indirectly by the public sector. There were so many public sector employees back in 2014-15 in my riding who took extreme issue with what the Conservatives had done. They had even lost the support of corrections guards. That is where we were. I was meeting with corrections employees and their unions to discuss what Stephen Harper had done to them.
The reality is that no person, in my opinion, with a memory of the Harper years and how he treated organized labour could stand and honestly say that Stephen Harper was on the side of organized labour. It just did not exist.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
