44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 26, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, workers coming together in solidarity, negotiating collectively and at times making the very difficult decision to withhold their labour is something that has raised the material condition of working people in this country for generations and generations. This is not a tactic or a strategy; this is something that is defined in our Constitution.
It is a constitutionally protected right, and yet we have seen again and again consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments undermine the rights of workers in many ways. One of those ways is back-to-work legislation, which we have seen repeatedly in this place. Another of the most pernicious ways workers' rights are undermined is the use of replacement workers, and that is the topic of Bill C-58, which I rise to speak about today on behalf of the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Replacement workers are workers who are brought in by the employer during times of work stoppage, during lockouts and strikes. They are brought in to do the work of unionized workers. When employers use replacement workers, or as they are colloquially referred to, “scabs”, it undermines the ability of unionized workers to negotiate and to secure improvements with their employer through the collective bargaining process.
The use of replacement workers also has a profound impact on communities, especially small communities like the ones I represent. It increases the risk of violence on picket lines. Most significantly of course, it removes the incentive on the part of the employer to bargain in good faith with the employees. The use of replacement workers has been documented as lengthening the duration of labour disputes.
All of these are reasons we need to pass the historic legislation before us. It would be a very significant contribution to the long legacy of codifying workers' rights in Canadian law. It is one that would allow workers to improve their lot at a time when working people in this country are falling farther and farther behind. People are having trouble putting food on the table. People are having trouble accessing the services they need, like pharmacare or dental care, which are things we are also fighting for in this place.
I am exceptionally proud that it is the NDP that once again has forced this historic legislation before us. In fact the NDP has brought forward legislation to ban the use of replacement workers not once, not twice, but eight times over the past 15 years. Each time it has come forward for a vote, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have voted against it, most recently in 2016. Now we have managed, as a party born of and founded by labour, to create the conditions whereby the government has had a change of heart. It has seen the value of banning replacement workers and has chosen, rightly, to work with us to make sure this historic legislation passes through this place.
I cannot say the same for my Conservative colleagues. They are at a very important juncture when it comes to the legislation; the Conservative Party wants the support of working people, and there is a bill before us that is supported by all of the unions in Canada, by the vast majority of working people working under collective agreements.
Conservatives have a choice to make, which is whether they stand with those people to give them an important tool for ensuring that their collective bargaining rights are upheld and their constitutional rights are protected during times of labour dispute, or whether they side with the employers who wish to continue with the status quo and a situation whereby they are able to bring in non-union workers in order to continue production at their facilities. If production is allowed to proceed with the use of replacement workers, the leverage, the negotiating power, of unions is greatly undermined.
This, of course, is legislation that has already been put in place in my home province of British Columbia. I am very proud that we have a progressive provincial government that has seen the value of banning replacement workers. The reality is that the sky has not fallen. The legislation has been in place for some time, and we have seen collective bargaining proceed. We have seen workers manage to negotiate in good faith with their employers and secure benefits they so rightly deserve.
I had a chance to attend the press conference right in the foyer of the House of Commons on the day that the bill was tabled in the House. Standing there listening to labour leaders who have been working on this for decades, hearing them say that it is legislation that working people have been trying to secure for almost as long as Canada has existed, was an emotional moment. It really underlined the historic significance of the bill that is before us.
I will end by recognizing the hard work of my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who worked hard with the Minister of Labour to hammer out the bill we have before us. We want to see it brought into force as quickly as possible, and I sincerely hope that it passes through this place unanimously.
873 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:54:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member on one point. In 2021, the Liberal election platform did specifically mention that we would bring in legislation to prohibit replacement workers. The mandate letter issued to the Minister of Labour in December 2021 also included this specific thing.
I am glad that British Columbia and Quebec have similar legislation in place. Does the member agree with me that it is time for all provinces to bring in similar legislation to protect the interests of workers?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:10:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can tell the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, first of all, is that I did ask the Minister of Labour when this bill was first introduced whether the federal sector was included, and he indicated it was not. I think that is an opportunity. If it is sauce for the goose, it should be sauce for the gander.
The Conservatives are going to look at what amendments are put forward. As I said, there are some areas where I think the bill needs improvement, so we will be looking for that. At the end of the day, we will look forward to what happens at committee.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:13:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech really interesting, although I do not necessarily agree with all the points, and I think she may be confused on a few issues.
The facts are that anti-scab legislation has existed in Quebec and British Columbia for quite a long time and, as my friend said earlier, the sky has not fallen. I have heard all of the Conservative arguments, which are really catastrophic, but we know that so many people in this country want labour to matter because, when scabs walk in, it takes away workers' power to negotiate. This is what this is.
I am wondering if the member will support this bill moving forward and if we are going to maybe get some ideas that the Conservatives want to bring forward. At the end of the day, I hope that every party in the House supports workers.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:25:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, maybe like you, I was so involved in listening to the hon. member that I wanted him to go on.
Could the member mention the recent impacts on the Port of Montreal and the labour disputes, and how this legislation might help to add balance so that we do not have prolonged disputes, as we have seen recently in Montreal at the port?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:28:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I think I mentioned in my speech, respecting workers' right to negotiate with employers, to restore the balance of power with the employers, is the very essence of labour law. That is what good labour relations are all about.
As my colleague said so well, if we want to negotiate working conditions that make sense and that align with the current inflationary situation, for example, workers need to have that leverage. It is fundamental. This needs to be resolved as soon as possible.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member of the Bloc Québécois for his kind introduction and his wonderful speech.
This is my first speech about Bill C-58. The Green Party supports this legislative measure because it is necessary. I am so pleased that we have the opportunity to debate it, and I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this bill. It is so important for workers' rights and employer-employee relations.
I had the experience, before ever becoming involved in partisan politics, and the real honour of working on behalf of organized labour and trade unions. I was a lawyer with the only downtown firm in Halifax, in those days, that represented only union-side labour. All the other downtown firms in Halifax represented the employers. I had the great honour of working on behalf of the longshoremen's union, the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union and others.
I understand something about labour relations and the importance of having leverage, having some way in which workers have tools to create balance so that the employer does not hold all the cards. We know that when a union goes into a legal strike position, it is very important that they are able to exercise those rights, because they are rights. The difficulty we have had in Canada over many years is that, in common parlance or the terminology, employers will use “scab” labour. Scab labour translates to the language in this legislation: “replacement workers”.
It is the same thing. The slang term is “scab workers”. They are a serious threat to workers' rights.
It has been a long time coming to this legislation, as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who just spoke, pointed out.
The province of Quebec has had legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout. That legislation has been in place in Quebec for 46 years.
I want to once again commend Quebec. The Province of Quebec has often been the first to implement such important measures. That was the case with day care and with workers' rights.
Here we are, finally, in February, debating this legislation, at second reading before a vote, which was first tabled in November. While I was waiting for the opportunity to speak this afternoon, I went back over Hansard and tried to find any evidence of any speech from any Conservative member of Parliament that would let us know if they favoured the legislation or not.
We just tried again with the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. I cannot find any clear indication, which means that I live in hope that my Conservative friends will be voting in favour of getting this legislation passed at second reading and to committee where it does need some improvements.
An hon. member: Wait for the vote.
Ms. Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, my friends across the way said that they want to keep me in suspense. That is okay. Suspense is a lot of fun.
I do hope that everyone in this place, across all party lines, will vote for this legislation. It does need amendments. I see that the United Steelworkers union has made it clear that it would like to see the exemptions and the loopholes in this bill, Bill C-58, removed. There are some exemptions that would allow certain categories of workers and volunteers to continue their activities during strikes and lockouts. That certainly undermines the core purpose of this legislation.
The main purpose of this bill is to do away with the use of replacement workers. We do not need small loopholes that allow for the use of replacement workers.
We do not need loopholes. We need to close them up and tighten them up when this bill gets to committee.
Another place where I hope we can see improvements in committee is in getting rid of the 18-month delay before the bill would come into force. We have seen, as I mentioned, that the Province of Quebec has had this legislation for 46 years. The Province of British Columbia also has this legislation. A stable set of union-employer relations and a system of collective bargaining that is respected really matter. Both sides have their tools, and they need to have access to those tools. It is an unbalanced and therefore less economically secure situation for our economy when the tools to one side are removed. Strikes and lockouts actually last longer when scab labour is used. There is greater stability and greater security for our economy when scab labour is eliminated, and I would urge the government to amend the legislation to make this stronger.
However, in looking at this and going back over Hansard to try to find any indication of how my Conservative friends were going to vote, I found that friends from South Shore—St. Margarets, Mégantic—L'Érable, Essex, Calgary Nose Hill, Calgary Rocky Ridge, Chilliwack—Hope, Provencher, Battle River—Crowfoot and Sarnia—Lambton made repeated reference to things that have nothing to do with this legislation. If I may, I will take a moment just to clarify.
When we talk of replacement workers, we mean specifically one thing only: the use of scab labour when a union is in a legal position to strike or there is a lockout. Those are the situations in which replacement workers in this legislation, Bill C-58, are referenced and banned. It is unfortunate, then, that in so much of the very limited debate, consisting of basically three days, with a number of speakers, over and over again Conservative members have raised the Stellantis battery plant, its use of federal dollars and the fact that it is also subcontracting with South Korea. Numerous speakers have made the mistake of referring to workers, in the context of workers from South Korea working at the Stellantis battery plant as part of a trade agreement that was put in place by the previous Conservative government, as somehow being replacement workers. They are emphatically not replacement workers when they are from other countries under agreements that have been made. Certainly, the Green Party prefers that all workers in Canada are Canadian workers who live and work here, but we have many, many agreements with large multinationals to use workers from other countries. Just to be very, very clear for people watching from home, those workers are not replacement workers. They have nothing to do with this legislation.
Therefore, despite references that somehow the Liberals are violating their own Bill C-58 by allowing 900 workers from South Korea at the Stellantis battery plant, saying that they are, as quoted from one of my Conservative colleagues, “essentially replacement workers”, I want to be very clear that they are essentially nothing of the sort. They have nothing to do with Bill C-58. They are not replacement workers. They are, in fact, workers from another country who have been brought in under the kinds of deals that have been organized between transnational corporations and various governments in this country. It is not my favourite thing to see workers come in from other countries, but let us not mix up our concepts, because it creates confusion in the public.
This legislation is, purely and simply, about one thing and one thing only. That is to defend the rights of workers within trade unions to support organized labour in this country, which has given us so much. From work hours that are reasonable and banning child labour to many social improvements right across this country, we can thank organized labour. Workers who go out on strike should never have to see their colleagues crossing a picket line to continue to support the unfair practices of an employer when a union is in a legal strike position.
With that, I would like to thank the House for its time and allow the Green Party to go on record as being strongly in favour of Bill C-58 and strongly in favour of improving it and strengthening it in committee.
1372 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join in the debate in the House on a matter of great significance for our workforce and the future of collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector.
Bill C-58 is an essential piece of legislation that seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations, 2012. At the core of Bill C-58 is the commitment to create a fair, collective bargaining process by introducing a ban on the use of replacement workers, commonly known as scabs, during strikes or lockouts.
The implications of this legislation are far-reaching, touching the core of the relationship between employers and workers during labour disputes. What makes Bill C-58 particularly noteworthy is the extensive collaboration with the labour movement, exemplified by the dedicated work of organizations such as the Durham Regional Labour Council in my riding. The involvement of these councils, representing the interests and concerns of workers, has been instrumental in shaping the provisions of this bill. The Durham Regional Labour Council, along with other labour organizations, has a long history of being a vocal advocate for fair treatment of workers and the regulation of replacement workers.
Through a series of consultations, discussions and negotiations, the labour movement has played a crucial role in influencing the content and scope of Bill C-58. The goal has been to strike a balance between the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining and the operational needs of employers, especially during critical periods of labour disputes. This collaborative process has strengthened the bill significantly, demonstrating what can be achieved when diverse voices, especially those representing the labour movement, actively engage in the legislative process. The provisions within this bill reflect a balanced approach, acknowledging the rights and responsibilities of both workers and employers.
As Teamsters Canada president, François Laporte, put it, “This is a big step forward for workers.” Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, which represents the thousands of skilled tradespeople at GM's Oshawa assembly plant, said, “This legislation is a step toward levelling the playing field. It will be good for the economy and good for labour relations”. To quote our labour minister, “Our economy depends on employers and workers negotiating an agreement at the table”. That is what this legislation does. It provides a framework such that employers, along with workers and their unions, will be able to negotiate better deals at the table.
The legislation is a response to the acknowledgement that the right to strike can be undermined when employers resort to the use of replacement workers, perpetuating imbalances between workers and employers. The ban proposed in this bill would be a crucial step toward fostering a healthier workplace and strengthening the rights of employees in federally regulated private sectors by prohibiting employers from using new hires or contractors to perform the work of unionized employees who are on strike or locked out. Furthermore, it would prevent employers from allowing employees in a bargaining unit to work during a full strike affecting the entire unit. The ban would not be absolute, but it is carefully crafted to allow certain exceptions.
The Government of Canada respects the right to strike, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, all governments also have a responsibility to make sure strikes and lockouts do not risk the health and safety of the public. To protect the public, the rules of engagement require employers and unions to continue providing certain essential services during strikes and lockouts. Employers can use replacement workers if it is necessary to prevent threats to life, health or safety; the destruction or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises. This measured approach would strike a balance between protecting workers' rights and ensuring the essential functioning of businesses in exceptional circumstances.
To enforce the ban, the bill would empower unions to appeal to the Canada Industrial Relations Board if they believed an employer was violating the ban. This independent administrative tribunal has the authority to investigate complaints and, if found valid, order the employer to cease the violation. Furthermore, the bill introduces a maximum fine of $100,000 per day for employers convicted of violating the prohibition, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence.
Bill C-58 would also set clear timelines requiring parties involved in a strike or lockout to come to an agreement within 15 days after notice to bargain collectively. This agreement would outline what activities, if any, need to be maintained during the work stoppage to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the health and safety of the public. If parties cannot reach an agreement, they can apply to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to arbitrate a settlement. The board would be obligated to make a decision within 90 days and could expedite proceedings if necessary. The bill would mandate that parties must have an agreement or a board decision in place before issuing the required 72-hour notice for a strike or a lockout.
The rationale behind Bill C-58 is grounded in the recognition that the ability to form a union, bargain collectively and strike is fundamental to a healthy workforce and democracy. The prohibition of replacement workers would be a critical step toward preserving the integrity of the right to strike, ensuring that workers could act collectively without facing the threat of immediate replacement.
The ban on replacement workers would be a positive economic move. It would promote stability, certainty and better collective agreements by preventing the distraction from the bargaining table that could otherwise prolong disputes and negatively impact workplace dynamics for years. By addressing these challenges head-on, Bill C-58 aims to create an environment conducive to constructive labour relations and economic prosperity.
In conclusion, Bill C-58 represents a significant milestone in the ongoing efforts to enhance the collective bargaining process in federally regulated private sectors. By introducing a ban on replacement workers and improving the collective bargaining process, the legislation aims to strike a balance between workers' rights and the essential functioning of businesses.
Let us all remain focused on the overarching goal, which is to create a fairer and more equitable collective bargaining landscape. Bill C-58 is a step toward achieving this goal. Together we can build a future where the rights of workers are protected and our economy thrives on the principles of fairness and cooperation.
1091 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:58:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I see the relevance to the particular bill we are focused on, but perhaps I can speak to one of the questions that has come up: Why does this not include the public sector? I think the reason is that this is a particular set of amendments to the Labour Code, which is not the Public Service Act; it is another act. My understanding is that the public sector unions have agreements with the federal government to ensure that during any labour disputes, essential services are able to be provided and that Canadians do not see any interruption in those essential services. My understanding is that public sector unions do not use replacement workers.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:59:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish my French were good enough for me to respond in French.
The 18-month timeline of coming into force is something that was debated, that we did work on and that we felt unions and labour organizations, as well as employers, needed as the runway to adapt, because this is would be a really significant change. It would be arguably one of the biggest changes in terms of collective bargaining in Canadian history. I would say that it merits a bit of a runway for organizations to adapt and get ready, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs time as well.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:12:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I enjoy about this place is that we have the opportunity to debate. I have listened to speeches today and actually gone back to previous days and read through other speeches, and I am still learning about the nuances of the particular sector. As I explained, I have had experience in an agriculture setting, where deadlines were imposed by a force that growers and processors both acknowledged, so there was a process developed to address that.
On final offer arbitration, I am glad the member opposite is so familiar with it. I have the opportunity to meet with many groups, and not just from agriculture, as they come into my office. I have talked with labour unions and all sorts. What I am exploring here and listening for throughout the debate is something that no one has yet told me, which is how the final offer arbitration process is an unfair process to either the labour side or the employer side. That is the beauty of it, that it actually drives a good negotiation. Arbitration is always unpleasant, as are strikes and lockouts.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:13:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I share the parliamentary secretary's curiosity with regard to the Conservative Party's position on this legislation. Its members are still studying it at this late hour, and I guess it is going to be somewhat of a surprise, maybe a good surprise and maybe a bad surprise, when it comes to a vote.
My question is whether he has consulted with labour unions in his constituency on the topic of this bill, and if so, what message did they bring to him with regard to banning replacement workers in strikes and lockouts?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today we stand at the height of transformative change in the landscape of Canadian labour law. With the introduction of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, we are ushering in a new era of labour relations that would place the principles of fairness, safety and economic stability at the forefront of our national workforce policy.
At its core, Bill C-58 seeks to reinforce the sanctity of the collective bargaining process by banning the use of replacement workers during strikes or lockouts. This critical legislation would mandate that employers in federally regulated sectors cannot hire new employees or managers after a notice to bargain collectively is given, or contractors to perform the work of striking or locked out employees. This move would be not merely a legislative action but also a profound statement of our collective belief in the power and importance of genuine negotiation between employers and unions.
Before I go further into the details of the legislation, let me recognize the important role and success of trade unions. Trade unions have been instrumental in shaping the economic landscape of developed countries, including Canada, playing an important role in their development into prosperous economies with a high quality of life for workers.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as industrialization accelerated, trade unions emerged as key players in advocating for workers' rights, leading to significant labour reforms. They fought for fair wages, reasonable working hours and safer working conditions, contributing to the growth of a middle class that fuelled consumer spending and economic expansion. The labour movement led to the establishment of minimum wage laws and overtime pay, and to the prohibition of child labour, among other labour protections. Trade unions were central to securing workers' benefits such as health care, unemployment insurance and pension plans, which are cornerstones of the country's social safety net.
These achievements not only improved the quality of life for workers but also stabilized the workforce, reducing labour disputes and fostering a more productive economy. Moreover, trade unions have played a critical role in advocating for policies that benefit the wider community, such as public education and health care, contributing to the social and economic well-being of the broader population. Their ongoing efforts to ensure fair employment practices and equitable economic growth continue to support the high standard of living in Canada.
Trade unions remain highly relevant in Canada today as they continue to address the evolving challenges faced by workers in a rapidly changing economy. In the era of globalization, technological advancements and shifting labour markets, unions play a critical role in advocating for fair wages, job security and workers' rights amid increasing automation and the gig economy. They provide a necessary counterbalance to corporate power, ensuring that economic growth benefits all layers of society, not just the top echelons.
Let me also touch upon the importance of collective bargaining and why unions are still relevant today. Collective bargaining and negotiations between employers and unions are fundamental mechanisms that ensure a balanced and fair relationship in the workplace, with profound implications for both the economy and the quality of life of workers. This process allows unions to negotiate on behalf of their members for better wages, benefits, working conditions and job security, reflecting the collective interests and needs of the workforce.
By providing a structured framework for dialogue, collective bargaining helps prevent labour disputes and fosters a cooperative environment where both parties can work towards mutually beneficial solutions. The importance of collective bargaining extends beyond individual workplaces, contributing to broader economic stability and growth. It helps in setting industry-wide standards that can elevate living conditions and reduce income inequality. Furthermore, by giving workers a voice in their employment conditions, collective bargaining empowers them, promoting workplace democracy and participation.
In today's rapidly changing labour market, characterized by the rise of precarious employment and the gig economy, collective bargaining remains highly relevant. It adapts to new challenges, such as remote work arrangements and the need for continuous skills development, which would ensure that workers are protected and fairly compensated in the face of technological advancements and global competition. Through collective action and negotiation, trade unions have been key to balancing economic development with social equity, making them fundamental to the prosperity and the high quality of life enjoyed in Canada.
While Bill C-58 would mandate that employers cannot hire new employees after a notice to bargain collectively is given, it smartly delineates two critical exceptions to this rule to ensure that essential services and public safety are not compromised. Employers would be permitted to use replacement workers only when necessary to prevent threats to life, health or safety; to avoid serious damage to property or premises; or to avert significant environmental harm. Furthermore, it would allow employees in the bargaining unit to work during a full strike or lockout if it is vital to prevent immediate and serious danger to public health and safety. The bill underscores the importance of staying at the bargaining table and fostering an environment where disputes can be resolved through dialogue and mutual respect, rather than through adversarial and potentially harmful practices.
The prohibition against the use of replacement workers would be a significant step toward levelling the playing field during labour disputes. Moreover, the bill introduces a more structured and predictable framework for maintaining activities during strikes or lockouts. It would mandate that employers and unions must collaborate to determine what essential work must continue, with clear deadlines for reaching an agreement. This approach would not only minimize disruptions but also emphasize the collective responsibility of both parties to safeguard the public interest.
Economically, Bill C-58 is poised to instill greater stability and certainty across industries. By discouraging protracted disputes and fostering healthier labour relations, it would create a more attractive environment for business and investment. The certainty and predictiveness this legislation would bring to labour relations would be invaluable for our national economy, ensuring that Canada would remain competitive on the global stage.
In conclusion, Bill C-58 represents a bold step forward in our journey toward a more equitable, safe and prosperous labour market. It would reinforce the right to strike as a fundamental aspect of a healthy workforce, address the inefficiencies in the current system and set a new standard for labour relations in Canada. As we debate and discuss this landmark legislation, let us remember the profound impact it would have on the lives of Canadian workers, the health of our industries and the overall well-being of our nation.
1108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:33:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that this is most important legislation when it comes to the labour workforce in our country. This would be a fundamental change to the way in which collective bargaining and negotiations would take place. Because this would be a major change, it would require time for all the parties involved to get adjusted to the new reality. This is a long time coming, and it would be around for a very long time, so the period of 18 months is required for all the players to get accustomed to the new reality and to make necessary adjustments in their approach in future negotiations.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:35:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, since it came to power in 2015, has always worked for the benefit of the labour force in our country. It has worked hand in hand with the labour unions at all levels. It has always consulted with them and has taken necessary steps to protect their well-being.
Personally speaking, my wife is a member of the CUPE union. I see the benefits to the labour force that has the unions. Unfortunately, for the federally regulated workforce, out of a million employees in the federal workforce, only about 34% are unionized. I hope that this particular legislation, similar to what is already available in B.C. and in Quebec, will be adopted by the other provinces in the coming days.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:48:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it would certainly have helped if I had learned some French over the years. My interpretation said 18 days, but it is 18 months, as we know.
There are concerns and one is if the House is not sitting and there is an expectation of having right-to-work legislation. When the House sits, we can deal with that when needed, but if it is not, then all of a sudden it gets dragged out. We can always say that is allowing the process to work. However, we do not work our way through that problem, and maybe that is something we should be looking at as well because it is something we see happen with the ministry of labour.
As I mentioned during my address, it is important that everybody talks to the labour minister because there are a lot of other things that happen other than just his discussion with businesses' employees.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:51:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is encouraging to hear members of the Conservative caucus talk relatively positively about the labour movement, but they have not been clear about their intentions with regard to the legislation.
After listening to the member's speech, I would ask the member to reflect on how he will vote on the legislation.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:53:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, part I of the Canada Labour Code “sets the rules for unionization, collective bargaining and labour disputes in federally regulated sectors. More specifically, Part I applies to” and it then goes through the list, “the federally regulated private sector, which includes key industries such as: banking; telecommunications and broadcasting; air, rail and maritime transportation; most Crown corporations (for example, Canada Post);...First Nations band councils”. It also applies to “all private sector businesses and municipal governments in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon”.
Therefore, the question becomes why we are taking certain groups and carving them out. From what I have heard in the last couple of days, there has really been no discussion about that. I think this is something that really deserves more of that thoughtfulness.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
