Honourable senators, I’m speaking today at second reading of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

The main purpose of this bill is to create a ban on the use of replacement workers in the event of a strike or lockout in federally regulated workplaces, such as those in the aviation, telecommunications and banking sectors.

It also aims to amend the maintenance of activities process. The government’s intention with this bill is to improve labour relations across Canada.

Some time before the bill was referred to the Senate, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the other place completed its review. I’m emphasizing that because I want to draw your attention to the fact that this bill has aroused a great deal of interest. The committee received 20 briefs and heard from 37 witnesses. I’ll refer to some of their testimony later in my speech.

The bill continued its journey through the other place, and I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it passed unanimously on May 27.

Bill C-58 was finally sent to us for sober second thought on May 28, 2024. Let’s not forget, colleagues, that this bill will have a major impact not only on relations between unions and management, but on all Canadians.

I will now summarize the main features of this bill, which will amend the Canada Labour Code in five key ways. First, with regard to obligations concerning strikes and lockouts, clause 6 of the bill amends the Canada Labour Code by changing the process for maintaining certain activities. Measures are being taken to ensure that the employer and the union agree on the terms governing the activities that need to be maintained.

In addition, if the parties fail to reach an agreement within the statutory time frame, the Canada Labour Board will, on application made by either party, determine any question with respect to maintenance of activities.

Second, still on the subject of strike and lockout obligations, clause 9 of bill repeals subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code to:

(a) amend the scope of the prohibition relating to replacement workers by removing the requirement of demonstrating a purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity . . . .

Similarly, the amendments made in clause 9 of the bill include a list of persons that employers are prohibited from using during a strike or lockout. The clause would:

(b) prohibit employers from using, during a legal strike or lockout intended to involve the cessation of work by all employees in a bargaining unit, the services of an employee in that unit . . . .

This clause provides exceptions to these prohibitions in the event of threats, destruction or damage.

Third, under clause 12 of Bill C-58, when an employer contravenes the prohibitions I just mentioned, a new section of the Canada Labour Code establishes “a fine not exceeding $100,000” for each day that the offence is committed.

Fourth, clause 14 of the bill, again through a new section added to the Canada Labour Code, empowers the Governor in Council to:

 . . . make regulations establishing an administrative monetary penalties scheme for the purpose of promoting compliance with subsections 94(4) and (6) . . . .

Fifth and finally, clause 18 of the bill provides for its coming into force 12 months after it receives Royal Assent.

I said earlier that I would draw your attention to some of the testimony that was given before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the other place.

It goes without saying that this kind of bill leads to differences of opinion and triggers debate. Having the opportunity to listen to those very different opinions helps us understand how important it is that we do our job of providing sober second thought on this bill. This bill will have many consequences, not only for the two main stakeholders, but also for suppliers, retailers and consumers. As a result, we must listen to and carefully consider all of the opinions that have been and will be shared with us.

For example, the committee heard from representatives of various unions, including the United Steelworkers Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. The committee also heard from representatives of various associations. For instance, the Canadian Canola Growers Association and the Canadian Telecommunications Association testified about Bill C-58.

The committee also heard from representatives of various federations, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

The witnesses expressed concerns and talked about issues affecting various workplaces. For example, some fear the number of strikes will increase, and they worry that may have repercussions beyond the labour dispute itself. Others feel that the list of exceptions to the ban on the use of replacement workers should reflect the reality of certain workplaces.

I would invite the committee that will review Bill C-58 to pay special attention to certain issues that merit further study. For example, the committee could take a closer look at how the bill will affect the balance of power between labour and management once it is passed. Have we struck the right balance, or have we created a new imbalance?

Should the list of exceptions where the use of replacement workers is allowed be further restricted, or should it be expanded?

Does the current wording introduce ambiguity that could be tricky to interpret, as with “imminent or serious threat?”

What impact will the bill have on anyone other than the parties directly involved?

These are just a few examples of the many avenues to explore.

In closing, colleagues, even though the bill was passed unanimously in the House of Commons, the Senate must nonetheless take its role of providing sober second thought seriously. We must examine any potential flaws in the bill that could have a major impact on workers and employers directly involved in a labour dispute, as well as the collateral damage that could result from the changes proposed by Bill C-58.

Accordingly, I invite the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which the bill will likely be referred for study, to give special, careful consideration to the issues I mentioned, in addition to any particular elements the committee might identify.

Thank you. I invite you to vote in favour of this bill at second reading.