SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 256 - Nov/27/23

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Nov/27/23 4:17:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, like British Columbia, where I live, Quebec has had similar legislation for a long time. Can the member tell us a little bit more about the impact this law would have on people?

39 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Nov/27/23 4:17:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking her question in French. That is always appreciated. I think that we have seen many examples of lockouts and strikes in Quebec where the workers were not federally regulated. When there are no replacement workers being brought in during a labour dispute, the workers and the unions have a little more room to negotiate. As Nina Laflamme said, it puts workers on an equal playing field with the employer. I think that is extremely important. Obviously, this bill does not resolve all of the issues. Negotiations can take a long time. We are seeing that right now with the Front commun in Quebec. Sometimes it takes a long time to come to an agreement, but having scabs involved only complicates things. I think that, since 1977, Quebec has been able to prove just how important it is to have this type of legislation.

152 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Nov/27/23 4:18:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, given that my colleague is from Quebec, could she expand on the legislation that Quebec already has? Does she feel this would improve it, or would she still like to see other improvements in the legislation that has been put forward?

43 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Nov/27/23 4:19:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, from what I understand of this legislation, it is quite good. There might even be some progress. That makes sense. As my colleague said earlier, Quebec forged ahead in 1977 when it passed similar legislation. Of course, if there are improvements that could be made here, we can always learn from that piece of legislation, even in 2023, and come up with something worthwhile. It is always important to have this process of questioning experts in committee. It gives us the opportunity to see if those who are knowledgeable and have the expertise want to add anything to the bill or take anything out. I think that is important. I may not be an expert on the subject, but the experts will certainly be able to guide us at this stage of the study. The little bits we have seen so far are mostly about time frames. As I was saying, I think we may have acquired all the tools we need to be able to move forward in a shorter time frame than the proposed 18 months prior to royal assent.

185 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Nov/27/23 4:20:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville have already said, this legislation has been in force in Quebec for quite some time. It has become part of Quebec's social mores. The Bloc Québécois is closely attuned to Quebec's social mores, which is why we applaud this bill. Does my colleague have any idea why the House of Commons has refused for so long, 11 times, to pass this legislation? Do Canada's social mores oppose this kind of worker and labour relations protection?

109 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Nov/27/23 4:20:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it seems that this great Canada, which is so different from Quebec, may be resistant to this, either for unknown reasons or for the reasons my colleague before me mentioned. However, I think it is important to move forward and pass this kind of bill immediately. Parliament could have done so as far back as 1990, when our colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel first introduced such legislation. We certainly had to negotiate in order to convince the government of the importance of such a bill. I am pleased that we have reached this point we are at today. It took time, however.

108 words

Quebec

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/27/23 4:21:32 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Canada Post Corporation.

38 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Nov/27/23 4:21:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak in this House. The purpose of Bill C‑58 is to support free and fair collective bargaining. If passed, it will help restore and maintain the balance of power between unions and employers during strikes or lockouts. According to the unions, employers are in a position of strength in labour disputes. We therefore need to ensure that each side can have equal strength when they go to the bargaining table. Workers have rights. I think that everyone agrees on that. They have the right to organize, to bargain collectively and to go on strike. Striking is the tool they use to put pressure on the employer, but when they go on strike, they have to make sacrifices. They sacrifice their pay, their benefits, their day-to-day security. I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Labrador, who is a long-time friend and colleague, with whom I sit on the natural resources committee. With regard to employers, the sacrifices they make during a lockout are not always comparable to those of striking workers. Before introducing Bill C‑58, we did our job. Among other things, we held consultations with all stakeholders, including employers and unions. The unions told us about the shift in the balance of power during a strike or lockout. Restoring balance is a key element for them. According to what the unions we met with told us, employers always have the upper hand in the negotiations because they have a lot more financial power than the workers. They explained to us that when employers use replacement workers, it creates an even greater imbalance. It weakens the workers' main pressure tactic, which is to deprive the company of its workforce. Some have even argued that employers could use the replacement workers to avoid making compromises. For unions, this shift in the balance of power makes the bargaining process more difficult and makes strikes and lockouts last even longer Workers who are not being paid do not feel as though they are on a level playing field with their employer, who has the means to pay workers to keep the business running. Unions feel as though both sides are not equally motivated to negotiate and come to an agreement. Employees do not think it is fair or equitable when an employer replaces a worker who is on strike. That can also impact what is happening at the bargaining table and have a very negative impact on labour relations. What is more, it increases the risk of violence on the picket lines. We have often seen that in the past. Workers get frustrated and tensions rise. It puts everyone's safety at risk, including that of replacement workers. What the unions are telling us is the truth. These things have happened. Take, for example, the lockout of unionized employees at the Co-op Refinery in Regina in 2019. The company spent millions of dollars building a camp that it filled with scabs from outside the province. It had so much financial power that it was able to bring replacement workers in by helicopter so that they could get across the picket lines. The company hoped that the unionized workers who were locked out would give up their pensions. The conflict lasted 200 days and was marked by blockades, arrests and even a bomb threat. Is there a better example to illustrate how imbalanced the power relationship between unions and employers can sometimes be and how much damage that can cause? The point is clear: Resorting to replacement workers diverts attention away from the bargaining table. It prolongs disputes, and it can poison workplaces for years, if not decades. We are banning the use of replacement workers because we believe in balanced collective bargaining, free and fair collective bargaining. How would Bill C-58 restore that balance? This bill would encourage unions and employers to resolve their differences as they should—together, on an equal footing at the bargaining table. In other words, it brings the focus back to the bargaining table. That is where this has to happen, because that is where the best deals are made. We are going to do this by ensuring that employers can no longer get others to do the work of striking or locked out workers. I am talking about employees and managers hired after notice to bargain has been served. Contractors, regardless of when they were hired, would also be prohibited from doing the work of striking or locked out employees. Now, as in all things, there are exceptions. Employers could use replacement workers to prevent threats to life, health or safety; to prevent destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or to prevent serious environmental damage affecting the property or premises. Any violation of the rules would be considered an unfair labour practice under the Canada Labour Code. I will spare the House the details of the complaint process, but it should be noted that it would be handled by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB. Bill C‑58 also provides for improvements to the process for the maintenance of activities. To prevent serious danger to the public, employers and unions should agree at the beginning of the bargaining process on what activities are to be maintained during a strike or lockout. The parties will have to come to an agreement within 15 days of the start of the negotiations, before they can issue 72-hour notices of their intention to strike or impose a lockout. If there is no agreement, it will be up to the CIRB to make a decision within 90 days. If no agreement or decision can be reached, there will be no strike or lockout. I talked about what the unions told us during our consultations. As I mentioned, however, we consulted all the parties involved. We reached this point today because we worked in a spirit of tripartite collaboration. Together, the government, the unions and employers all sat down at the same table. We had open, honest and direct discussions. We worked freely and fairly, which is exactly what we want for the future of labour relations in Canada. Bill C‑58 will unquestionably improve labour relations, protect the right of workers to strike, limit collective bargaining interruptions and ensure greater stability for Canadians during disputes in federally regulated industries. Bill C-58 will lead to free and fair collective bargaining at all times.

1098 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Nov/27/23 4:32:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to start by pointing out that this member and all his Liberal colleagues voted, twice, against legislation to prevent replacement workers, in 2016 and against in 2019. I would like to know why the bill does not apply to heavily subsidized projects, like Stellantis, which is going to bring in 1,500 or 1,600 scab labourers from Asia. That is one question. I heard the member mention that critical services would get exempted, such as pharmaceutical products, air ambulances and things like that. I have had people in the aviation industry point out to me, and I know they have studied it a lot, that things like firefighting, delivery by air of pharmaceuticals and air ambulances are threatened by this legislation. Could the member provide the House with the clauses in that bill that would exempt those aspects of the aviation industry from this legislation?

152 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/27/23 4:33:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, the best deals are done at the negotiating table between the parties, the employer and the union. Second, I am fully for foreign direct investment in this country. I am fully for Volkswagen, Stellantis, Toyota and Honda, and any other entity in the automobile sector, in this example, to come and invest here. If those entities need to bring in workers with specialized technology so that Canadians can have jobs, that is a win for our country, our communities and Canadian families. Foreign direct investment in every part of our economy, whether it is Ferrero Rocher from Italy, Toyota or any company that is here in Canada, operating from abroad, General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, all these companies employ literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We want them to come here and invest in Canada. We will partner with industry and labour, unlike the party on the opposite side.

151 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Nov/27/23 4:34:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said earlier, the Bloc Québécois introduced a similar bill in 1990 and reintroduced it 10 times. What is rather odd is that, every time the Liberals were in power they voted against the bill, and every time they were in opposition they voted in favour of it. This leaves the impression that they are anti-union. There is a provision in the bill that once again gives the impression that they are anti-union, specifically, the one that says the bill will only come into force a year and a half after it receives royal assent. This means that, after the work of Parliament here and the study by the Senate, there will still be a waiting period of a year and half. As a result, an election will very likely be called before workers are given these basic rights. Does my colleague not think that a year and a half is unreasonable? Why do we need so much time for a legislative measure that is simple to implement and that is easily implemented in most developed countries?

200 words

Union

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/27/23 4:35:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question. I would like to say that I have supported unions my entire life. I have always been pro-labour. Before I entered university, I worked at a pulp and paper mill in British Columbia. They were on strike. I walked a picket line. I walked a picket line for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union at a cannery, where I grew up in Prince Rupert. Private sector unions and their training facilities are located in my riding, along with their headquarters. I will always be in support of the rights of workers from coast to coast to coast. This is just another example of that. Again, the best deals are done at the negotiating table. We know that. Whether they are carpenters, labourers, electricians or workers in federally regulated sectors of our economy, we know the best deals are done at the negotiating table. We always need to make sure that the balance is there. We know that 97% or 98% of deals are done even before a strike happens. We understand there are methods of mediation and arbitration. Mediators come in. We all understand it. This is just another step in the maturity of our Canadian labour market. It is the right thing to do. It is a good thing for Canadian workers. We, on this side of the aisle, will always stand up for Canadian workers, unlike the official opposition.

244 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/27/23 4:37:08 p.m.
Watch

I will remind members to keep their questions and answers as short as possible so everyone can participate in the debate this evening. We will resume debate with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

38 words

Northern

Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence), Lib.)

Nov/27/23 4:37:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill today. It is legislation that I have supported for a very long time. I have advocated for it since my days sitting in the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that the Government of Canada believes in collective bargaining. We always have. We have always been very supportive of the union movement, and we are one of the governments that has made significant amendments and has had several pieces of legislation to support workers in Canada since we began our time in office. We really believe that Canadian workers have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations where replacement workers are not waiting in the wings to take their jobs. We have all seen it. We have seen how this story plays out across Canada when workers have earned the right to strike and have earned the right to collective bargaining, yet when they are out on the picket line, someone else is called in to do their jobs. Canadian workers need to be able to trust that union jobs are good jobs and that union leaders are able to represent their best interests in fair, honest and balanced negotiations at that bargaining table. That is a fair process. It is why we are introducing this legislation today, which bans the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. I hope this is the beginning of a process of fairness that we will see legislated in provinces and territories across the country. The union movement has been making this case for generations. For generations, it has been saying that the threat of replacement workers tips the bargaining table balance in the employer's favour. We have seen that many times over and over again. We think its members are right, and we agree with the statements they are making. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of the true collective bargaining process, which has been legally binding in Canada for many decades. We are trying to level the playing field, and level it in a way that supports unions and the rights that they have fought for and have won over many decades in Canada. This legislation is so important for Canadian workers because, when contract negotiations drag on and consistently reach a stalemate, workers are ultimately faced with a decision between two choices. They can either take the less-than-satisfactory employer offer, or they can go on strike. Those are the only options they have. They certainly feel that it is not always a fair process. Making a decision to go on strike is not an easy one. No unionized workers vote to walk the picket line without weighing the decision and its implications carefully. It is invariably a money-losing proposition, at least in the short term, for all of them. It hurts their families financially, and hurts them and their families psychologically. Sometimes withdrawing labour is the workers' only way, the last case scenario, to exert the pressure they need to get the deal they deserve and have worked for. I have walked the picket line with unionized workers many times in my political career simply because I believed in what they were doing—

546 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/27/23 4:41:38 p.m.
Watch

I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but we are having some interpretation problems. The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia raised this issue.

31 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Nov/27/23 4:41:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There is no interpretation.

9 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/27/23 4:41:52 p.m.
Watch

We are hearing that the audio is not as good as it should be.

14 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Nov/27/23 4:42:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a House of Commons-issued headset, so it should be working. Maybe I could continue, and if there is a problem, you can let me know. During the time I have been serving people across Labrador, in particular, and across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I have continuously—

54 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/27/23 4:45:34 p.m.
Watch

We are still not getting the interpretation. I will confer with the Table for a second. I do apologize. The problem we are running into is the headset. Unfortunately, for interpretation, it does not sound as good. We will have to go to the next speaker. I will confer with the Table to see if we can allow the hon. member to complete her speech. The hon. member only got about halfway through before there was a problem with interpretation. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to rectify the problem so the hon. member will be able to finish. I apologize. I guess that is the fun part of being virtual.

111 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Nov/27/23 4:45:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your reserving the time for me.

10 words