SOCI Committee briefing binder: Appearance by the Minister of Labour and Seniors - June 11, 2024

Official title: Appearance of the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI), Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. Date: June 11, 2024 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

1. Opening remarks

1.a. Minister's opening remarks - Podium

Opening remarks for the Honourable Seamus O'Regan Jr., Minister of Labour and Seniors, for his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI) studying Bill C-58: An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012 (Replacement Workers), on June 11, 2024.

Ms. Chair, Committee members,

Thank you for inviting me, as Labour Minister, to speak about Bill C-58.

I would like to thank this committee for its speedy consideration.

I am honoured to be part of a government willing to support the right to strike of Canadian workers and to create a fairer collective bargaining process.

This right often gets undermined.

Employers bring in replacement workers during a strike to keep the business going, but this clearly undermines the rights of the workers on strike.

Bill C-58 will change this for good. It is a major milestone in the fight for fairness:

fairness for Canadians who expect their right to strike to be protected
fairness for Canadians sacrificing their pay and benefits to improve their working conditions
and fairness for workers' families who need negotiations to wrap up as quickly as possible

The Unions have told us - employers have the upper hand at the bargaining table. Allowing replacement workers makes this imbalance worse and leads to a longer bargaining processes.

The use of replacement workers also sours the relationship between the employer and workers for years after.

The best agreements are reached through good faith negotiations at the bargaining table; and we wanted to level the playing field.

That is why we introduced Bill C-58 to prohibit the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces during a strike or lockout, and to improve the current maintenance of activities process.

On November 9, 2023, Bill C-58 was introduced. It received unanimous consent at second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (HUMA). The Bill was amended and sent back. The Government agreed and at third reading, Bill C-58 was unanimously adopted.

It received unanimous approval because it levels out the power dynamic between unions and employers.

Bill C‑58 is about keeping the focus where it belongs - on the bargaining table by removing distractions and staying focussed on the task at hand. Tackling problems head-on is not easy, but it works. And it is the right thing to do.

Now Bill C-58 is here. I would like to thank the members of this Committee for their commitment to protecting the rights of Canadian workers.

This is a milestone Bill built on the shoulders of generations of Canadians who have stood out there in the cold for their fundamental rights.

Banning the use of replacement workers is good for Canada.

I will be pleased to now answer any questions you may have. 

2. Legislation

2.a. Copy of Bill C-58

Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-58 (44-1) - Third Reading - An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012 - Parliament of Canada

2.b. Clause by clause analysis

Clause-by-clause - Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

Clause 1 - Subsection 12.001(1) of the Canada Labour Code (Code) is replaced by the following:

Subsection 12.001(1) of the Code allows the Chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (Board) to appoint an external adjudicator to determine certain matters under the Code.

This clause amends subsection 12.001(1) to allow Chairperson of the Board to appoint an external adjudicator to determine a maintenance of activities application or referral.

This means that when the Board receives an application or referral related to maintenance of activities, the Chair of the Board has the power to appoint an external adjudicator to handle that application or referral, instead of the Chair or a Vice-chair of the Board. This clause is expected to assist with the timely resolution of maintenance of activities matters.

Clause 2 - Section 16 of the Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (m.1):

Section 16 of the Code lists the powers of the Board.

This clause adds paragraph (m.2) to section 16 to give the Board the power to make any orders and give any directions that are appropriate for the purposes of expediting proceedings or preventing an abuse of process in any proceeding before it. This new power is expected to help the Board reach faster decisions in some cases.

Clause 3 - Subsection 22(1) of the Code is replaced by the following:

Subsection 22(1) of the Code states that orders and decisions of the Board are final and not questionable or reviewable by any court, except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act.

This clause amends subsection 22(1) to provide that this rule is subject to potential regulations which may provide for reviews or appeals of decisions related to administrative monetary penalties (see clause 14).

Clause 4 - Subsection 29(1.1) of the Code is replaced by the following:

Subsection 29(1.1) of the Code provides that any person whose services are used in violation of the replacement workers prohibition is not an employee in the bargaining unit and, therefore, cannot participate in a representation vote.

Representation votes are taken with respect to certifying or revoking certification of a trade union as the bargaining agent for the unit. This clause makes a consequential amendment that would align subsection 29(1.1) with the new replacement workers prohibition established under subsection 94(4) (see clause 9(2)).

Clause 5 - Section 87.2 of the Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

This clause adds a new subsection 87.2(4) to provide that the parties cannot provide 72 hours notice of strike or lockout (which is a mandatory requirement under the Code) unless:

the parties have entered into a maintenance of activities agreement and filed it with the Minister of Labour and the Board, or
where the parties have not entered into a maintenance of activities agreement, the Board has determined a maintenance of activities application made to the Board under subsection 87.4(4))

Subclause 6(1) - Subsections 87.4(2) to (5) of the Act are replaced by the following:

This subclause amends certain parts of the maintenance of activities process.

(2) Agreement

Subsection 87.4(2) of the Code currently provides that an employer or union may provide the other party with a notice specifying what activities they believe need to be maintained during a strike or lockout to prevent an immediate and serious threat to the health and safety of the public. They have 15 days from the day notice to bargain is given, to provide this notice to the other party.

Subsection 87.4(2) is significantly amended to require parties (employer and union) to reach a maintenance of activities agreement within 15 days after notice to bargain is given.

Paragraph 87.4(2)(a) provides that the agreement must set out what needs to be maintained during a work stoppage (such as, the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods) to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

Paragraph 87.4(2)(b) provides that the agreement must also set out the manner and extent to which the activities need to be maintained.

(2.1) For greater certainty

A new subsection 87.4(2.1) is added to provide that, even if the employer and union do not believe that any activities need to be maintained during a work stoppage, they must enter into a maintenance of activities agreement. The agreement can state that no maintenance of activities is required.

(3) Filing with the Minister and Board

Subsection 87.4(3) of the Code provides that if the parties enter into a maintenance of activities agreement, either of them may file a copy of the agreement with the Board. If they do, it has the same effect as an order of the Board.

Subsection 87.4(3) is amended to require that the employer and union file a copy of the maintenance of activities agreement with the Minister of Labour and the Board immediately after reaching the agreement. The filed agreement has the same effect as an order of the Board.

(4) If no agreement entered into

Subsection 87.4(4) of the Code provides that if the parties do not enter into a maintenance of activities agreement after one party notifies the other what activities they believe need to be maintained, either party can apply to the Board to determine any question of what activities the parties need to maintain. They must file this application within 15 days of notice of dispute being given.

Subsection 87.4(4) is amended to provide that, if the union and employer do not reach a maintenance of activities agreement within 15 days of the notice to bargain, the Board must decide any question with respect to maintenance of activities following an application by either party.

(5) Referral

Subsection 87.4(5) of the Code allows the Minister of Labour to make a referral to the Board at any time after notice of dispute has been given. This referral may include any question with respect to the application of the requirement to maintain activities to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the health and safety of the public, or any question as to whether a maintenance of activities agreement is sufficient to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the health and safety of the public.

Subsection 87.4(5) is amended to provide that the Minister of Labour can only refer a question to the Board on whether a maintenance of activities agreement is sufficient. The Minister would no longer be able to refer general questions about the application of the requirement to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the health and safety of the public.

In order for the Minister of Labour to make a referral, the parties need to have already entered into an agreement. The Board would then determine if the maintenance of activities agreement is sufficient to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

Subclause 6(2) - The portion of subsection 87.4(6) of the Code before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Subsection 87.4(6) of the Code provides that the Board may make an order if it is determining an application from either of the parties or a referral from the Minister of Labour.

This subclause amends subsection 87.4(6) to make a minor wording change before paragraph (a). The changes do not affect the substance of the provision.

Subclause 6(3) - Section 87.4 of the Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):

This subclause adds four subsections after subsection 87.4(6).

(6.1) Time limit

Subsection 87.4(6.1) requires the Board to determine maintenance of activities matters, and send a copy of its decision and any order to the parties, within 82 days of when the application or referral was received.

(6.2) Late order or decision not invalid

Subsection 87.4(6.2) provides that the Board can continue to determine maintenance of activities matters even after the 82-day time limit specified in subsection 87.4(6.1) has passed. Any order or decision made by the Board is valid even if it is made after the 82-day time limit passes.

(6.3) For greater certainty

Subsection 87.4(6.3) provides that the Board may exercise any of its powers to ensure that it complies with the new 82-day time limit (see clause 6(3)).

(6.4) Filing of an agreement before decision

Subsection 87.4(6.4) allows the parties to enter into a maintenance of activities agreement and file it with the Minister of Labour and the Board at any time before the Board has determined a maintenance of activities application. Once the parties file a maintenance of activities agreement, the matter is no longer active and before the Board. This means the Board does not have to issue a decision or order on the matter.

This provision allows the parties to continue working on and entering into a maintenance of activities agreement even if they have previously made an application to the Board.

Clause 7 - Section 87.6 of the Code is replaced by the following:

Section 87.6 of the Code requires employers to reinstate employees in the bargaining unit who were on strike or locked out, in preference to any person whose services were used contrary to the limited replacement workers prohibition currently under the Code.

This clause amends section 87.6 to require the employer, at the end of a strike or lockout, to reinstate employees in the bargaining unit who were on strike or locked out over any other person.

Clause 8 - Paragraph 89(1)(e) of the Code is replaced by the following:

Paragraph 89(1)(e) of the Code does not permit an employer or a trade union to declare, cause or authorize a strike or lockout unless the Board has determined any maintenance of activities application made by a party, or any maintenance of activities referral made by the Minister of Labour.

This clause amends paragraph 89(1)(e) to eliminate redundant language. The reference to maintenance of activity applications made by parties is removed because parties will not be permitted to issue a strike or lockout notice, which is also required before an employer or a trade union can declare, cause or authorize a strike or lockout, until the Board determines those applications.

Subclause 9(1) - Subsection 94(2.1) of the Code is repealed.

This subclause repeals the current, limited replacement workers prohibition provided for in subsection 94(2.1).

Subclause 9(2) - Section 94 of the Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

This subclause amends section 94 of the Code to include new subsections which introduce a new prohibition on using certain types of replacement workers during a work stoppage.

(4) Prohibition relating to replacement workers

The new subsection 94(4) would prohibit an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer from using the services of the following people to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit who is on strike or locked out:

any person performing management functions or who is employed in a confidential capacity in matters related to industrial relations, if that person is hired after the day when notice to bargain is given. This means that an employer cannot use new managers, or other types of workers who do not meet the definition of employee under the Code
any employee who was hired after the day when notice to bargain is given or who was transferred to the location where the strike or lockout is happening after the day when notice to bargain is given. This means an employer cannot bring in employees who normally work at other work locations to do the work of striking or locked out employees at another location. Only employees who were hired before notice to bargain and who normally worked at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain could legally perform the work of striking or locked out workers
any contractor (other than a dependent contractor) or any employee of another employer. This means that employers cannot use the services of any contractor to perform the work of striking or locked-out employees. Bill C-58 defines two categories of contractors:
- any contractor other than a dependent contractor: This captures situations where, for example, the employer contracts a single individual working as an independent contractor (for example, a plumber working for themselves) to do the work of striking or locked out employees, and/or
- any employee of another employer: This captures situations where, for example, the employee hired by another company (for example, a call-centre operator) to perform the work of striking or locked out employees
any volunteer, student, or member of the public. This ensures that the prohibition applies even if the person performing the work is not being paid, is a student, or is a member of the public with no employment or contracting relationship with the employer

(5) Clarification - continuing services

The new subsection 94(5) clarifies that an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer can continue to use contractors and any employees of another employer during a work stoppage if they were hired before notice to bargain was given and they are performing their services in the same manner, to the same extent and in the same circumstances as they did before the notice was given.

This would ensure that if an employer normally employs contractors to do work that is similar to the work its unionized employees do, those contractors would not have to stop working if there were a strike by the unionized employees performing similar functions.

(6) Prohibition relating to employees in the bargaining unit

The new subsection 94(6) would prohibit employees in the bargaining unit from crossing the picket line. Specifically, an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer would be prohibited from using the services of any employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out if the strike or lockout is intended to involve the cessation of work by all the employees in the bargaining unit. This means that if the work stoppage is intended to involve the whole bargaining unit, then the employer cannot use any employees from the bargaining unit to continue working during a strike or lockout.

Bargaining unit members could be used for the purpose of complying with section 87.4, 87.7 or 94(7).

(7) Exception - threat, destruction or damage

The new subsection 94(7) would outline an exception to the replacement workers prohibition. It would permit an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer to use prohibited replacement workers under certain circumstances to perform all or part of the duties of the bargaining unit employees who are on strike or locked out.

Paragraph 94(7)(a)

Paragraph 94(7)(a) would provide that employers or persons acting on behalf of an employer can use the services of replacement workers to deal with a situation that presents, or could reasonably be expected to present, an imminent or serious:

threat to the life, health or safety of any person
threat of destruction of, or serious damage to, the employer's property or premises, or
threat of serious environmental damage to the employer's property or premises

Paragraph 94(7)(b)

Paragraph 94(7)(b) would provide that employers or persons acting on behalf of an employer are only permitted to use prohibited replacement workers when necessary. In other words, this would only apply when the employer is unable to deal with the situation by other means (for example, using workers that are not prohibited).

Paragraph 94(7)(c)

Paragraph 94(7)(c) would require the employer to offer employees in the bargaining unit the opportunity to perform any work necessary to prevent the imminent or serious threats outlined in paragraph (a), before the employer could legally bring in a replacement worker to do that work.

(8) For greater certainty

The new subsection 94(8) would clarify that the use of prohibited replacement workers, under the exceptional circumstances outlined in 94(7), is only for conservation purposes and not to continue supplying services, operating facilities or producing goods.

Clause 10 - Paragraph 99(1)(b.3) of the Code is replaced by the following:

Paragraph 99(1)(b.3) of the Code currently provides that if an employer violates the current, limited prohibition on replacement workers, the Board can order them to cease using replacement workers for the duration of the dispute.

This clause amends paragraph 99(1)(b.3) to provide that if the Board determines an employer has failed to comply with the new replacement workers prohibition, the Board may order the employer to stop using replacement workers for the duration of the dispute.

This clause also adds paragraph 99(1)(b.4) to provide that if the Board determines an employer has failed to comply with the prohibition relating to bargaining unit members, the Board may order the employer to stop using these employees for the duration of the dispute.

Clause 11 - The Code is amended by adding the following after section 99:

(1) Time limit

This clause adds a new subsection 99.01(1). It provides that the Board shall exercise its powers and perform its duties and functions under sections 98 and 99 to deal with complaints related to the replacement workers prohibition or the bargaining unit member prohibition, within the time limit set out in regulations, or if no time limit is prescribed, as soon as feasible.

(2) Copy of decision and order

This clause adds a new subsection 99.01(2) which requires the Board to send a copy of its decision and of any order relating to the replacement workers prohibition and the bargaining unit member prohibition to the parties and the Minister of Labour within the time period set out in regulations, or if no time limit is prescribed, as soon as feasible.

Clause 12 - The Code is amended by adding the following after section 100:

This clause adds a new section 100.1 which provides that every employer who contravenes the replacement workers prohibition under subsection 94(4) or the bargaining unit member prohibition under subsection 94(6), can be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence is committed or continued.

Clause 13 - Section 111 of the Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (f):

This clause adds a new paragraph (g) to section 111 which would provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing a time limit for the Board to determine if a prohibition was complied with and the rules if that time limit is not met.

Clause 14 - The Code is amended by adding the following after section 111:

(1) Administrative monetary penalties

The clause adds a new subsection 111.01(1) to provide the authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations that establish an administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) regime for promoting compliance with the new replacement workers prohibition and the bargaining unit member prohibition. It allows the Governor in Council to make regulations.

(2) Violation or Offence

This clause also adds subsection 111.01(2) to provide that an employer can only be subject to an AMP or a fine following prosecution, not both.

Clause 15 - Paragraph 14(f) of the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012 (CIRB Regulations) is replaced by the following:

Paragraph 14(f) of the CIRB Regulations sets out the types of matters that are subject to the Board's expedited process.

This clause amends paragraph 14(f) to update the reference to the new replacement workers prohibition and add a reference to the bargaining unit member prohibition.

Clause 16 - Paragraph 41.1(f) of the CIRB Regulations is replaced by the following:

Paragraph 41.1(f) of the CIRB Regulations requires parties to include a copy of the notice of dispute when making an application to the Board related to maintenance of activities.

This clause makes a consequential amendment to paragraph 41.1(f) of the CIRB Regulations to specify that a maintenance of activities application must include a copy of the notice of dispute if one was given.

Subclause 17(1) - Words and expressions

This subclause provides clarity for the meaning of words and expressions used in subclause 17(2) and 17(3).

Subclause 17(2) - Maintenance of activities

This subclause is a transitional provision that provides that the new maintenance of activities process will only apply to collective bargaining processes where the notice to bargain is given on or after the day the amendments come into force.

Subclause 17(3) - Prohibitions - uses of services during strikes and lockouts

This subclause is a transitional provision that provides that the new prohibitions will apply to any work stoppage that is ongoing on the day the prohibition comes into force.

Clause 18 - Twelve months after royal assent

This clause provides that the proposed bill would come into force 12 months after it receives Royal Assent.

If the Act receives Royal Assent on a day of the month that does not exist in the month in which the provisions come into force, then the provisions come into force on the last day of that month instead. For example, if the Act had received Royal Assent on February 29, 2024, it would come into force on February 28, 2025.

2.c. Q's & A's

General
Replacement workers
Maintenance of activities
Other
- Q37: Is the Government considering designating certain industries as "essential"?

General

Q1: What does Bill C-58 do?

Bill C-58 would do 2 things.

First, it would ban replacement workers. Specifically, it would ban employers from using several types of people to do the work of striking or locked out workers. This includes:

any employee or manager hired after the employer or union gives notice to bargain
for employees hired before notice to bargain, employers could only use employees if they normally worked at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain is given
employers would also be prohibited from using contractors to fill in and do union work during a strike or lockout, regardless of when they were hired
to make it extra clear, employers could not use volunteers, students or members of the public to fill in during a strike or lockout
in addition, employers would be prohibited from allowing employees in a bargaining unit to "cross the picket line" and work, if the bargaining unit is involved in a full strike or lockout where all employees are expected to stop working

Second, the bill would amend the existing maintenance of activities process. Specifically, it would require employers and unions to come to an agreement on what activities must be maintained during a strike or lockout to prevent serious harm to the public.

The parties would be required to enter into an agreement within 15 days of starting to bargain
Failing to do so would require them to take the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board - the Board - who would then rule within 82 days. To meet that timeline, the Board would have new powers to expedite proceedings and prevent abuse of the process
The parties would not be able to issue 72 hours' notice of their intention to strike or lockout without a maintenance of activities agreement or a decision of the Board
The Minister of Labour would continue to have the authority to refer a question to the Board if there were concerns about whether an existing agreement was sufficient to protect the health and safety of the public

Q2: Why is the Government banning the use of replacement workers?

The Government of Canada recognizes that the ability to form a union, bargain collectively and strike are essential to a healthy workforce. These rights allow workers to act together and maintain the balance of power between individual workers and their employer. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the right to strike.

When unionized workers exercise their right to strike, they sacrifice their pay and benefits to try to improve their working conditions by putting pressure on their employer. However, the Government has heard that this right is undermined when an employer brings in replacement workers to keep the business going while workers are on strike or locked out.

To ensure that all workers in federally regulated sectors continue to benefit from a meaningful right to strike, the Government introduced Bill C-58 on November 9, 2023, to ban the use of replacement workers when a union employer in a federally regulated industry has locked out employees or is in a strike.

Q3: What is Part I of the Canada Labour Code and to whom does it apply?

Part I of the Canada Labour Code - the Code - sets out the legal framework for unionization, collective bargaining, dispute resolution, and legal strikes and lockouts in federally regulated sectors.

Part I of the Code applies to a broad range of federally regulated industries, including interprovincial and international air, rail, road and marine transportation, banks, telecommunications, as well as postal and courier services.

In total, about 21,550 employers and about 1,060,000 employees are covered by Part I of the Code. Of these, about 32% of employees are unionized.

Q4: Who do the proposed amendments apply to?

The prohibition on replacement workers would apply to about 21,550 employers and about 1,060,000 employees in the sectors of the economy regulated by the federal government covered by Part I of the Canada Labour Code.

This includes interprovincial and international air, rail, road and marine transportation, banks, telecommunications, as well as postal and courier services.

The prohibition on replacement workers would not apply to the federal public service. And it would not apply to employers and employees working in sectors that are regulated by provincial governments.

If pressed on the federally regulated private sector, some of the key industries in the federally regulated private sector include:

banking
telecommunications and broadcasting
air, rail, and maritime transportation
road transportation services
postal and courier services
most Crown corporations (for example, Canada Post)
certain activities of First Nations band councils and Indigenous self-governments (for example, governance and administration), and
all private sector businesses and municipal governments in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon.

Q5: Does this apply to the public service?

No. The proposed amendments only apply to employers and workers subject to Part I of the Canada Labour Code - the Code.

While Part I of the Code does apply to many crown corporations, it does not apply to the federal public service, which consists of the core public administration and separate agencies. These organizations are covered by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, which would not be amended under Bill C-58.

Q6: What other provinces or territories prohibit replacement workers?

All provinces and territories ban the use of permanent replacement workers. Which means that in Canada, employers cannot permanently replace workers just because they went on strike or were locked out.

Quebec and British Columbia are the only two provinces that ban employers from temporarily using replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. Quebec's prohibition was introduced in 1977 and BC's prohibition was introduced in 1993. There are minor differences between these provinces' prohibitions.

A similar ban was enacted in Ontario in 1993 but was repealed in 1995.

On May 6, 2024, Manitoba introduced legislation that would ban replacement workers in provincially regulated industries. The Bill is before the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

Q7: How does C-58 compare to BC and Quebec?

Bill C-58 is similar to what is currently in place in BC and Quebec.

The 3 frameworks ban employers from using employees hired after the negotiating stage has started to do the work of striking or locked out employees. And in all instances, contractors are covered by the ban.

In addition, Bill C-58 is aligned with the Quebec legislation by:

not allowing employers to use employees in the bargaining unit during a strike or lockout, and
permitting replacement workers to be used in exceptional circumstances to avoid serious damage to the employer's property

One key difference is that the ban in Quebec centers on the location where the strike or lockout is happening. That is, in Quebec if there's a strike at one location, the employer can't bring in employees, managers or contractors to work at the location while the strike or lockout is ongoing.

This location-based approach can create loopholes. We live in a digital world now, and many people can work remotely.

In 2023, the Superior Court of Quebec found that employers can use remote workers to replace people who are on strike or locked out without violating Quebec's ban, as long as they don't work at the location where the strike or lockout is declared.

Bill C-58 would apply to various work situations, including remote work. So, whether the employees work on a train, in a plane, in an office, or remotely, the bill would apply to them.

Q8: How does Bill C-58 compare to Manitoba's bill?

Bill C-58 is very similar to what is being proposed in Manitoba.

Under both proposed bans, employers would be prohibited from using the services of the following persons:

any employee or manager hired after the employer or union gives notice to bargain
for employees hired before notice to bargain, employers could only use employees if they normally worked at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain is given
volunteers (such as, unpaid people), and
contractors

Both bills include similar exceptions to the replacement workers prohibition and specify that a violation of the prohibition is an unfair labour practice.

However, there are also key differences between the bills:

Manitoba's bill does not ban employers from allowing bargaining unit members to continue to work during a full strike or lockout. Bill C-58 does
Manitoba's bill does not explicitly ban employers from using students or members of the public. Bill C-58 does
Manitoba's bill bans employers from using employees who work at the location of the strike or lockout and are in a bargaining unit that is not on strike or locked out. Bill C-58 does not include this
Manitoba's bill does not require the employer to offer bargaining unit members the opportunity to perform necessary work (such as, work permitted via the exceptions), before they hire replacement workers. Bill C-58 does
there are no fines associated with Manitoba's proposed replacement workers prohibition. Bill C-58 proposed fines of up to $100,000 per day that the offence is committed

There are also key differences between the maintenance of activities provisions in the bills:

Manitoba's bill would require parties to enter into an essential services agreement no later than 90 days before the expiry of the collective agreement. Bill C-58 would require parties enter into a maintenance of activities agreement within 15 days of filing notice to bargain
Manitoba's bill would give the Manitoba Labour Board 30 days to decide essential service applications. Bill C-58 would give the Canada Industrial Relations Board 82 days to decide maintenance of activities applications

Finally, Manitoba's bill would come into force upon Royal Assent. Bill C-58 would come into force 12 months after Royal Assent.

Q9: What international jurisdictions ban replacement workers?

Each country has a unique labour relations history. This means they also have unique labour relations systems for unionization and collective bargaining. This makes it hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons between countries' labour relations laws.

In terms of banning replacement workers, countries such as Portugal, New Zealand, and Spain have bans similar to those in British Columbia and Quebec - and the ban proposed in Bill C-58.

Q10: What is the approximate timeline to implement this measure?

The Bill will come into force 12 months after it receives Royal Assent.

Bill C-58 represents one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining rules since the 1990s.

These changes would impose significant new responsibilities on the Canada Industrial Relations Board. There will be more issues for the Board and less time to resolve them.

As Minister of Labour, I need to make sure the Board has the resources it needs to prepare itself in dealing effectively with all these new demands and expectations and deliver timely results for Canadian workers.

Q11: Why would Bill C-58 come into force 12 months after Royal Assent?

Bill C-58 represents one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining rules since the 1990s.

These changes would impose significant new responsibilities on the Canada Industrial Relations Board. There will be more issues for the Board and less time to resolve them.

We need to identify and appoint the right people to the Board who understand the industries, the unions, and the issues. It takes time to identify the right people with the right skills and experience. You can't rush this.

Accessing the funds to support staffing and other preparations also takes time. People generally don't like to talk about administrative issues; but they are part of the process, and they matter.

We need Parliament to approve the new funding going to the Board and the team supporting the Board.

Ensuring we are doing this right is important. It means workers, unions and employers will get decisions on time. It means they can focus on the negotiating table.

That's what every part of this bill is focused on: getting deals at the table.

Q12: Did the Government do consultations before introducing Bill C-58? What stakeholders did you consult?

We consulted a variety of stakeholders. We held 5 roundtables during the consultation period. A total of 55 stakeholder organizations participated in these roundtables.

Major unions and labour groups like the Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, Teamsters, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and others were present.

On the employer side, we had associations like Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications - or FETCO, Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, Conseil du Patronat du Québec and others.

We also had good sectoral representation, with major employers from key sectors such as telecommunications, air, marine and rail transportation, and courier and postal services.

In addition to the roundtables, we also received 71 written submissions as well as 45 personal stories and individual comments.

Q13: What amendments were made to Bill C-58 during committee study?

On May 2, 2024 the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

The committee adopted 5 amendments to the bill.

First, the Board's decision-making time was reduced from 90 to 82 days for maintenance of activities matters.

Second, the bill was amended to ensure that, once a strike or lockout ends, bargaining unit members are reinstated in preference to any other person.

Third, the replacement workers ban was broadened.

Under the amended bill, employers are banned from using any employee who did not normally work at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before the union or the employer give notice to start bargaining
Employers are also banned from using volunteers, students, or members of the public to do the work of striking or locked out employees

Fourth, employers are required to offer bargaining unit members the opportunity to do the necessary work before using replacement workers.

Finally, the coming into force date was reduced from 18 to 12 months after Royal Assent.

Replacement workers

Q14: How does the existing replacement workers prohibition work? Where does it come from?

Currently, employers can use replacement workers to mitigate the impacts of a strike while they work to reach a deal.

There is a very limited prohibition on replacement workers: employers cannot use replacement workers as a way to continue operations and refuse to bargain with the union.

This limited prohibition came into force in 1999. It was based on a recommendation made in the Sims Task Force's 1995 report "Seeking a Balance." This report and its recommendations were based on extensive consultations with employers and unions at the time and attempted to balance the interests of all parties.

Unions have since told us that the existing provision is not working because, fundamentally, the bar is too high. For the ban to apply, the union has to prove that the employer's intent was to use replacement workers specifically to undermine a union's ability to represent its members. Since unions can't always know what an employer is thinking, they argue that this is almost impossible to do.

The evidence backs that up - since its establishment in 1999, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has never found a violation of the prohibition, despite dozens of complaints.

Q15: How are replacement workers being defined in Bill C-58?

Bill C-58 would ban employers from using several types of people to do the work of striking or locked out workers. This includes:

any employee or manager hired after the employer or union gives notice to bargain
for employees hired before notice to bargain, employers could only use employees if they normally worked at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain is given
employers would also be prohibited from using contractors to fill in and do union work during a strike or lockout, regardless of when they were hired
to make it extra clear, employers could not use volunteers, students or members of the public to fill in during a strike or lockout
in addition, employers would be prohibited from allowing employees in a bargaining unit to "cross the picket line" and work, if the bargaining unit is involved in a full strike or lockout where all employees are expected to stop working

Q16: Are employers currently allowed to use replacement workers during a work stoppage under the Code?

Prior to 1999, employers were not prohibited in any way from using replacement workers during a strike or lockout. In 1999, Part I of the Code was amended to provide a limited prohibition on the use of replacement workers during a work stoppage. Specifically, it prohibits employers from using replacement workers if they are using them to undermine a union's ability to represent its members.

This limited prohibition was the result of recommendations made in the Sims Task Force's 1995 report Seeking a Balance. This report and these recommendations were based on extensive consultations with employers and unions at the time and attempted to balance the interests of all parties.

From 2012 to 2023, the Labour Program estimates that federally regulated employers used replacement workers to do the work of striking or locked out employees in approximately 42% of work stoppages.

Q17: Are there any workers the employer can use to do the work of striking or locked out workers?

Yes. The employer could use employees and managers who were hired before notice to bargain.

For employees hired before notice to bargain, employers could only use employees if they normally work at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before the employer or the union gave notice to bargain.

This would provide some flexibility to employers to help them mitigate the impacts of a work stoppage.

Also, in situations where threats to health, safety or serious property and environmental damage could not be managed by the employer's existing workforce, the use of replacement workers would be permitted.

Q18: How is the current ban on replacement workers enforced?

Unions or employees can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board if they feel that the employer has hired replacement workers to undermine a union's ability to represent its members.

Since its establishment in 1999, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has never found a violation of the prohibition.

Q19: How would the new prohibition be enforced?

Under Bill C-58, violating the replacement worker ban would be an unfair labour practice under the Canada Labour Code.

A union could file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board if they believed an employer was illegally using replacement workers. The Board would then investigate the complaint and, if necessary, would order the employer to stop.

The Bill also allows for prosecutions. If an employer was prosecuted and convicted, they could be subject to a fine of up to $100,000 for every day they illegally used replacement workers.

Q20: Are there any exceptions to the prohibition?

Yes. Bill C-58 includes exceptions to allow employers to use replacement workers in situations where health and safety are threatened or serious environmental or property damage is imminent.

Also, a bargaining unit member can perform work during a strike or lockout to maintain activities necessary to protect the public from an immediate and serious danger to their health and safety. Bargaining unit members performing this work are not considered replacement workers.

Q21: Would the public be at risk if employers were no longer permitted to use replacement workers?

Canadians would continue to be protected if there's a strike or lockout because the Canada Labour Code requires employers and unions to maintain all activities that are necessary to protect the public from an immediate and serious danger to their health and safety.

In fact, Bill C-58 would build on this by requiring employers and unions to reach an agreement on what activities need to be maintained during a strike or lockout very early during the negotiations process.

Bill C-58 would also allow employers to use replacement workers if it were absolutely necessary to prevent a threat to the life, health or safety of a person, or to protect against damage to property.

Q22: How often are replacement workers used in federally regulated sectors?

The Labour Program does not collect statistics on the use of replacement workers in federally regulated industries. However, research suggests that the use of replacement workers is relatively common. From January 2012 to June 2023, the Labour Program estimates that federally regulated employers used replacement workers to do the work of striking or locked out employees in approximately 42% of work stoppages.

This does not mean that the employer was able to maintain full operations during a work stoppage. It just means that there was evidence that one or more people did the work of striking or locked out workers at some point during the work stoppage.

Maintenance of activities

Q23: What is the maintenance of activities process under the Canada Labour Code?

Part I of the Canada Labour Code - the Code - requires employers and unions to continue services during a work stoppage to protect the health and safety of the public.

The Code relies on the employer and the union to know their business and know if any activities need to be maintained. If they can't agree, they can go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board - the Board - for a decision on what these activities should be.

The Board has set a high bar for what activities need to be maintained to make sure the right to strike is protected. To qualify, the threat has to be immediate and serious and there have to be no real substitutes.

Q24: How does the current maintenance of activities process work?

Fundamentally, employers and unions are responsible for identifying what activities must be maintained during a strike or lockout to protect the health and safety of the public. Or they may decide that no activities need to be maintained.

This is a requirement under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code.

If the parties agree, they enter into an agreement stating which activities they will maintain and how. If they do not agree, either the employer or the union can apply to the Canada Industrial Relations Board - the Board - to decide which activities, if any, need to continue.

The Minister of Labour can also intervene and make a referral to the Board if there is a question about whether the parties are respecting their obligations to protect the health and safety of the public.

If the Board gets involved before there's a strike or lockout, the parties cannot start a work stoppage until after the Board makes its decision. This suspends the right to strike or lockout until a decision is made.

Q25: What is wrong with the current maintenance of activities process?

Stakeholders have raised three main issues with the current maintenance of activities process.

The first issue is long decision-making times by the Canada Industrial Relations Board - the Board. In 2020 to 2021, 6 maintenance of activities cases had an average processing time of 212 days, and an average decision time of 17 days.

The second issue is that the Board's process suspends the right to strike, and unions allege that some employers purposefully use tactics to put off workers' ability to strike. These delays can build tensions between the parties, especially as negotiations generally stall while parties wait for the Board's decision.

Finally, the current process does not incentivize parties to resolve maintenance of activities issues early in negotiations. As a result, some parties only consider maintenance of activities once they are approaching a work stoppage. If there is a dispute regarding what activities need to be maintained at that stage, the only option available to either party is to request that the Minister of Labour to refer the matter to the Board.

Q26: Why is the Government making changes to the maintenance of activities process?

Part I (Industrial Relations) of the Canada Labour Code - the Code - has rules that require employers and unions to continue activities necessary to protect the public from immediate and serious danger, even though there is a strike or lockout. The Code also lays out a process for how to decide which activities need to continue. Unfortunately, the Government has heard that this process is not working smoothly, and may need to be updated.

To make sure that the Code continues to protect the public in the most efficient way possible, the Government has proposed changes to the Code in Bill C-58 to improve this process. These amendments would require employers and unions to come to a maintenance of activities agreement within 15 days of starting to bargain.

Q27: What changes are .being proposed to the maintenance of activities process?

Bill C-58 proposes to amend Part I of the Code to require employers and unions to enter into a maintenance of activities agreement. This would need to be done no later than 15 days after the start of bargaining.

The parties would need to do this even if they agreed that no activities needed to be maintained.

If the parties do not come to an agreement within 15 days, they would then apply to the Board, who would decide which activities need to be maintained during a work stoppage, if any.

The Board would be required to issue a decision within 82 days and would be empowered to expedite proceedings.

The parties could not issue a 72 hours' notice for a strike or lockout without an agreement or decision from the Board.

Q28: What is a maintenance of activities agreement?

A maintenance of activities agreement is determined by an employer and union.

It sets out what activities they agree to continue during a strike or lockout, and how they will continue them. An employer and union may agree that they do not need to maintain any activities during a work stoppage.

Q29: Why would Bill C-58 require all parties to have an agreement?

Right now, under the Code, it is not mandatory to have a maintenance of activities agreement, or a decision from the Board, before a work stoppage.

As a result, some parties don't discuss their obligations, which can contribute to anxiety and uncertainty as to the impacts of a work stoppage.

Others don't discuss it until late in negotiations - once they've been through conciliation and they are approaching a work stoppage. If there is a dispute at this stage, the only option is to request that the Minister of Labour refer the dispute to the Board. If a referral is made this late in the process, it can delay the right to strike for months.

Bill C-58 would address this problem and reduce delays by requiring the parties to have a maintenance of activities agreement within 15 days of starting to bargain. If they can't agree, they go to the Board directly. Only once they have their agreement or a decision of the Board can they give 72 hours' notice and launch a strike or lockout.

This change would help employers and unions deal with the maintenance of activities issue quickly so they can focus on the bargaining table. It's a predictable process that helps bring certainty to parties and stakeholders.

Q30: What is a Ministerial referral?

A Ministerial referral is when the Minister of Labour asks the Canada Industrial Relations Board - the Board - to intervene and decide what activities need to continue during a strike or lockout. A matter can be referred even if the parties already have a maintenance of activities agreement. The Minister of Labour can do this at any point after the employer or union gives notice of dispute, even after a strike or lockout begins.

If the Minister goes to the Board before there is a strike or lockout, the parties are banned from beginning a strike or lockout until the Board makes a decision. If the Minister goes to the Board after a strike or lockout has started, it can continue while the Board investigates.

Q31: What happens if the parties cannot agree on a maintenance of activities agreement?

If the parties cannot come to an agreement within 15 days after the start of bargaining , they would take the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board - the Board - who would then rule within 82 days.

To meet that timeline, C-58 gives the Board powers to expedite proceedings and prevent abuse of the process.

The parties could not issue a 72 hours' notice for a strike or lockout without an agreement or decision from the Board.

Q32: Why does the CIRB have 82 days to decide maintenance of activities matters?

The 82-day timeline provides the Board with a reasonable amount of time to reach a decision.

But equally importantly, this timeframe takes into account all the steps that are required under Part I of the Canada Labour Code before parties obtain the right to strike.

This means that unions and employers would not see their right to strike or lock out delayed by this process by a single day.

That is true even if the parties move towards a strike or lockout position as fast as legally possible.

Under the Code, there are several steps before the parties obtain the right to strike. These include:

the filing of notice to bargain and notice of dispute
the appointment of one or more conciliation officers
a minimum of 60 days of conciliation, and
a ‘21-day cooling off' period

The 82 day timeframe was not selected randomly.

This would ensure the latest day the parties can get a maintenance of activities decision is also the earliest possible day they can legally strike or lockout. There would be no delay to the right to strike or lockout.

If pressed on providing details on 82 days, under Part I of the Code, there are several steps before the parties obtain the right to strike:

first, they must file notice of dispute. Legally, the earliest possible day they could do this is one day after they file notice to bargain
second, the Minister must appoint one or more conciliation officers. The Minister has 15 days to do this. So we're at 16 days after notice to bargain
third, the parties have to go through a minimum of 60 days of conciliation. Now we're at 76 days after notice to bargain
finally, the parties have to go through a 21-day "cooling off period" before they obtain the right to strike or lockout
altogether that's 97 days

Now let's look at the new maintenance of activities process proposed under Bill C-58.

First, the parties have 15 days to enter into a maintenance of activities agreement. If they can't, they have to apply to the Board for a decision
Then the Board has 82 days to make that decision
Altogether that's 97 days total for that process

The numbers line up. The latest possible day the parties could get a maintenance of activities decision is also the earliest possible day they could legally strike or lockout. There would be no delay to the right to strike or lockout.

Q33: How do other jurisdictions protect the health and safety of the public during strikes and lockouts?

Generally, provinces and territories are responsible for things that are critical to public welfare like health care services, law enforcement, and emergency response personnel. To ensure that these services are available during work stoppages, the provinces and territories have essential service laws that dictate who can and who cannot strike.

These types of industries do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code. Instead, the Code covers federally regulated workplaces and includes maintenance of activities provisions which aim to protect the health and safety of the public.

Q34: How long does it take right now for decisions from the Canada Industrial Relations Board on maintenance of activities matters?

The Canada Industrial Relations Board - the Board - publishes its performance statistics online. This includes its average processing time, and the average decision-making time by type of matter.

The Board's performance statistics indicate that in 2020 to 2021, the Board took an average of 212 days to process maintenance of activities matters, and an average of 17 days to make decisions regarding maintenance of activities matters.

In the previous fiscal year, the Board took an average of 126 days to process maintenance of activities matters, and an average of 1 day to make decisions regarding maintenance of activities matters.

On April 18, 2024, the Chair of the CIRB testified at HUMA and used updated statistics. The Chair indicated that in 2023-24, the CIRB took on average 150 days to decide maintenance of activities matters. These statistics have not yet been published by the CIRB.

If pressed on the 2020 to 2021 statistics.

While newer CIRB performance statistics for 2021 to 2022 are available online, we chose not to reference this year because there is an average decision-making time of 0 days for maintenance of activities matters. This is because all the maintenance of activities matters before the Board in 2021 to 2022 were withdrawn.

Instead, we reference the CIRB's performance statistics for 2020 to 2021 and 2019 to 2020 as they reflect periods where the Board made maintenance of activities decisions.

Q35: What are some examples of activities that need to be maintained?

The requirement to maintain activities under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code applies to a wide variety of employers and unions' work.

For example, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has previously determined maintenance of activities matters where air traffic control services, ferry services between areas in Atlantic Canada and fire fighting services at Canadian airports must continue in the event of a strike or lockout.

Q36: Why aren't we talking about amending the maintenance of activities criteria?

The Government has been clear about the scope of the changes to maintenance of activities. Before consultations began, we made the decision to look at the maintenance of activities process. The scope was made clear during consultations and was reflected in our discussion paper.

So when we talk about maintenance of activities improvements, what we're talking about is improvements to the process. Not changes to the criteria.

Looking at the criteria would require extensive consultations and analysis on the potential impacts to make sure that we do it right.

If pressed on the maintenance of activities criteria.

Subsection 87.4(1) of the Canada Labour Code specifies that during a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

Other

Q37: Is the Government considering designating certain industries as "essential"?

No. Part I (Industrial Relations) of the Code does not include a mechanism to make certain industries ‘essential'.

However, it does require regulated employers and unions to continue any activities necessary to protect the public from immediate and serious danger, even though there is a strike or lockout. The Government is not considering changes to this fundamental requirement.

If pressed on the movement of grain (subsection 87.7(1))

Subsection 87.7(1) of the Canada Labour Code specifies that services to grain vessels must continue during a strike or lockout. The objective of subsection 87.7(1) is to establish the shipping of grain as an essential service in certain circumstances.

Specifically, in the long-shoring industry, the employer, its employees, and their bargaining agent must continue to provide the services they normally provide to ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels at licensed terminal and transfer elevators, and the movement of the grain vessels in and out of a port.

3. Comparison tables

3.a. Comparative analysis - Bill C-58 And Private Members Bills C-302 And C-276

This document compares Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, and the proposed prohibitions included in Private Members' Bills from the New Democratic Party (C‑302) and the Bloc Québécois (C-276). Note that some of the information contained in the table below is not stated explicitly in Bill C-302 and C-276 but is made clear from the text used in the prohibition and from other parts of Part I of the Canada Labour Code that would not be altered by Bill C-302 or C-276.

Who can legally be deployed to do the work of unionized employees who are on strike or locked out?

Bill C-58

Any employee or manager hired before the employer or union gives notice to bargain
Any employee hired before notice to bargain, only if they also normally worked at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain was given

Private Members Bills - Bill C-302 (New Democratic Party)

Managers who were hired before parties began bargaining
Senior managers, directors and officers of corporations
Bargaining unit members who are willing to defy their union and continue to perform work during a strike

Private Members Bills - Bill C-276 (Bloc Québécois)

Managers

Who cannot legally be deployed to do the work of unionized employees who are on strike or locked out?

Bill C-58

Any employee or manager hired after the employer or union gives notice to bargain
Contractors (or any employee of another employer), regardless of when they are hired
Any employee hired before notice to bargain if they did not normally work at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain is given
Volunteers, students or members of the public, regardless of when they were hired

Private Members Bills - Bill C-302 (New Democratic Party)

Persons hired after the parties began bargaining
Contractors (or any employee of another employer), regardless of when they were hired
Another employee of the employer, regardless of when they were hired

Private Members Bills - Bill C-276 (Bloc Québécois)

Persons hired after the parties began bargaining
Contractors (or any employee of another employer), regardless of when they were hired
Another employee of the employer, regardless of when they were hired

Can the employer use employees in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked-out?

Bill C-58

No. An employer cannot use employees in the bargaining unit if the strike or lockout is intended to involve a cessation of work by all employees in the bargaining unit.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-302 (New Democratic Party)

Yes

Private Members Bills - Bill C-276 (Bloc Québécois)

No. An employer cannot use employees in the bargaining unit.

Are there exceptions to the use of replacement workers?

Bill C-58

Employers can use replacement workers to prevent:

threat to the life, health or safety of any person
threat of the destruction, or serious damage to, the employer's property or premises, or
threat of serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises

This can only be for conservation purposes, not the production of goods and services.

Employers can use replacement workers only if persons not covered by the prohibition cannot perform the work.

The employer must offer bargaining unit members the opportunity to do this exceptional work before they hire replacement workers.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-302 (New Democratic Party)

Employers can use replacement workers, to the extent necessary to prevent:

a threat to the life, health or safety of any person
the destruction, or serious damage to, the employer's machinery, equipment or premises, or
serious environmental damage affecting the premises

This can only be for conservation purposes, not the production of goods and services.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-276 (Bloc Québécois)

Employers can use replacement workers to avoid the destruction of, or serious damage to, the employer's property.

How is the prohibition enforced?

Bill C-58

Violating either prohibition is an unfair labour practice under Part I of the Code. Unions would submit a complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) and the CIRB would resolve the matter using its expedited process.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-302 (New Democratic Party)

Violations are an unfair labour practice under Part I of the Code. Unions would submit a complaint to the CIRB and the CIRB would resolve the matter using its expedited process.

They can also apply to the Minister of Labour, who may designate an investigator who investigates and issues a report.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-276 (Bloc Québécois)

Violations are an unfair labour practice under Part I of the Code. Unions would submit a complaint to the CIRB and the CIRB would resolve the matter using its expedited process.

What are the penalties?

Bill C-58

The CIRB can issue an order requiring the employer to stop using replacement workers for the duration of the dispute
Fine of up to $100,000 per day on conviction

Private Members Bills - Bill C-302 (New Democratic Party)

The CIRB can issue an order requiring the employer to stop using replacement workers for the duration of the dispute
Fine of up to $100,000 per day on conviction

Private Members Bills - Bill C-276 (Bloc Québécois)

The CIRB can issue an order requiring the employer to stop using replacement workers for the duration of the dispute
Fine of up to $10,000 per day on conviction

When would the prohibition come into force?

Bill C-58

12 months after Royal Assent.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-302 (New Democratic Party)

On Royal Assent.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-276 (Bloc Québécois)

On Royal Assent.

Amendments related to reinstatement of employees?

Bill C-58

Employees who participate in lawful strike or lockout are to be reinstated in preference to any other person.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-302 (New Democratic Party)

Employees who participate in lawful strike or lockout are to be reinstated in preference to any other person.

Private Members Bills - Bill C-276 (Bloc Québécois)

Employees who participate in lawful strike or lockout are to be reinstated in preference to any other person, unless the employer has a valid reason not to reinstate those employees.

3.b. Comparative Table - Bill C-58 and Provincial Prohibitions

This document compares Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industria. l Relations Board Regulations, 2012, with the existing replacement worker prohibitions in British Columbia and Quebec and Manitoba's proposed replacement worker prohibition outlined in The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

Who can legally be deployed to do the work of unionized employees who are on strike or locked out?

Bill C-58

Any employee or manager hired before the employer or union gives notice to bargain
Any employee hired before notice to bargain, only if they also normally worked at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain was given

British Columbia

Employees and managers who were hired before notice to bargain was given or bargaining actually begins, (whichever is earlier) and who work in the same location where the strike or lockout is taking place
Bargaining unit members who are willing to defy their union and continue to perform work during a strike

Quebec

Managers who were hired before the negotiating stage begins and who work in the same location where the strike or lockout is taking place.

Manitoba's Bill 37

Any employee or manager hired before the employer or union gives notice to bargain
Any employee hired before notice to bargain, only if they also normally worked at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain was given
Bargaining unit members who are willing to defy their union and continue to perform work during a strike

Who cannot be deployed to do the work of unionized employees who are on strike or locked out?

Bill C-58

Any employee or manager hired after the employer or union gives notice to bargain
Any employees hired before notice to bargain if they did not normally work at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain is given
Contractors (or any employee of another employer), regardless of when they are hired
Volunteers, students or members of the public, regardless of when they were hired

British Columbia

Persons hired after the union and employer start bargaining
An employee or manager who normally works in a different work location
An employee who is transferred to the work location where the strike or lockout is happening after the union and employer start bargaining
Contractors (or any employee of another employer), regardless of when they were hired

Note that all the persons listed the above are prohibited whether paid or unpaid.

Quebec

Persons hired after the union and employer start bargaining
An employee or manager who normally works in a different work location
An employee who normally works at the work location where the strike or lockout is occurring
Contractors (or any employee of another employer), regardless of when they were hired

Manitoba's Bill 37

Any employee or manager hired after the employer or union gives notice to bargain
Any employees hired before notice to bargain if they did not normally work at the location where the strike or lockout is taking place before notice to bargain is given
Contractors (or any employee of another employer), regardless of when they were hired
Employees who work at the location of the strike or lockout and are in a bargaining unit that is not on strike or locked out

Note that all the persons listed the above are prohibited whether paid or unpaid.

Can the employer use employees in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked-out?

Bill C-58

No. An employer cannot use employees in the bargaining unit if the strike or lockout is intended to involve a cessation of work by all employees in the bargaining unit.

British Columbia

Yes

Quebec

No. An employer cannot use employees in the bargaining unit.

Manitoba's Bill 37

Yes

Are there exceptions to the use of replacement workers?

Bill C-58

Employers can use replacement workers to prevent:

threat to the life, health or safety of any person
threat of destruction of, or serious damage to, the employer's property or premises, or
threat of serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises

This can be solely for conservation purposes, not the production of goods and services

Employers can only use replacement workers to do this exceptional work if persons not covered by the prohibition cannot perform the work.

The employer must offer bargaining unit members the opportunity to do this exceptional work before they hire replacement workers.

British Columbia

None

Quebec

Employers can use replacement workers if the purpose is to avoid the destruction or serious deterioration of the employer's property.

This can only be for conservation purposes, not the production of goods and services.

Manitoba's Bill 37

Employers can use replacement workers to prevent:

threat to the life, health or safety of any person
threat of destruction of, or serious damage to, the employer's property or premises, or
threat of serious environmental damage

This can be solely for conservation purposes, not the production of goods and services.

Employers can use replacement workers only if persons not covered by the prohibition cannot perform the work.

How is the prohibition enforced?

Bill C-58

Violating the prohibition is an unfair labour practice under Part I of the Code. Unions would submit a complaint to the CIRB and the CIRB would resolve the matter using its expedited process.

British Columbia

Violating the prohibition is an unfair labour practice. The union would apply to the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.

Quebec

Unions can apply to the Tribunal Administratif du Travail for an urgent order if they believe there is an illegal use of replacement workers.

They can also apply to the Minister of Labour, who may dispatch an investigator who investigates and issues a report.

Manitoba's Bill 37

Violating the prohibition is an unfair labour practice under The Labour Relations Act. The union would apply to the Manitoba Labour Board.

What are the penalties?

Bill C-58

Fine of up to $100,000 per day if prosecuted and convicted.

British Columbia

N/A - there is no fine associated with the prohibition but a person who refuses or neglects to observe or carry out an order of the Labour Relations Board is liable to a fine on conviction. An individual's fine will not exceed $5,000, and a corporation, trade union or employers' organization's fine will not exceed $50,000.

Quebec

Fine of up to $1,000 per day if prosecuted and convicted.

Manitoba's Bill 37

N/A - there is no fine associated with the prohibition, but under Manitoba's Labour Relations Act if an unfair labour practice interferes with the rights of any person, union, employer, or employers' organization, the Board can order the party to pay a fine of up to $2,000.

What are the coming into force timelines?

Bill C-58

12 months after Royal Assent

British Columbia

Royal Assent received on December 15, 1992.

CIF was 35 days later on January 18, 1993.

Quebec

Royal Assent received on December 22, 1977.

CIF was 42 days later on February 1, 1978.

Manitoba's Bill 37

Immediately upon Royal Assent

4. Parliamentary environment

4.a. Scenario note

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI)

Bill C-58, An Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

1. Overview

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI) has invited you to appear in view of its study of Bill C-58, An Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

2. Committee Proceedings

Your appearance is scheduled to take place on June 11, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., accompanied by Labour Program officials and will be one of the first of this study.

You will be accompanied by:

Gary Robertson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs, Labour Program
Zia Proulx, Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program

You will have up to 5 minutes for opening remarks.

You have no outstanding follow up written responses due to the Committee.

The committee is expected to devote 4 meetings, totalling upwards of eight hours to this study, with panels of witnesses including, but not limited to, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation, and Communications, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Labour Congress, UNIFOR and Teamsters Canada. The final meeting will consist of clause-by-clause, and is currently scheduled to take place on June 13, 2024.

The Bill was referred to SOCI on June 6, 2024 after 2 short days of debate at second reading in the Senate. The second day of debate at second reading consisted of the speech by the Senate critic, Senator Claude Carignan (C - Quebec) in which he did not highlight any key areas of opposition and there were no questions by other senators prior to being referred to SOCI. Aside from the usual SOCI membership, which includes the Senate sponsor, Senator Frances Lankin (ISG - Ontario), there is a strong likelihood that the Bill critic, Senator Carignan, will attend, and remain for the duration of the study on Bill C-58.

4.b. Members biographies

Ratna Omidvar, Independent Senators Group, Province: Ontario (Ontario)

Biography

Ratna Omidvar came to Canada from Iran in 1981 and her own experiences of displacement, integration and citizen engagement have been the foundation of her work. In April 2016, Ms. Omidvar was appointed to the Senate of Canada as an independent senator representing Ontario. Senator Omidvar is the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and served as Deputy Chair of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector. She is a Vice-President of the Canada-Germany Parliamentary Group.

Senator Omidvar is a Director at the Century Initiative, a Councillor on the World Refugee and Migration Council, a Founding Committee Member of Lifeline Afghanistan and Chair Emerita for the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council.

Previously at Ryerson University, Senator Omidvar was a Distinguished Visiting Professor and founded the Global Diversity Exchange, a think-and-do tank on diversity, migration and inclusion. Prior to her appointments at Ryerson, Senator Omidvar was the President of Maytree, where she played a lead role in local, national and international efforts to promote the integration of immigrants.

Senator Omidvar is co-author of Flight and Freedom: Stories of Escape to Canada (2015). She is also a contributor to The Harper Factor (2016) and co-editor of Five Good Ideas: Practical Strategies for Non-Profit Success (2011). Senator Omidvar received a Honorary Degree, Doctor of Laws, from Ryerson University in 2018 and from York University in 2012.

Senator Omidvar was appointed to the Order of Ontario in 2005 and became a Member of the Order of Canada in 2011, with both honours recognizing her advocacy work on behalf of immigrants and devotion to reducing inequality in Canada. In 2014, she received the Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in recognition of her contribution to the advancement of German-Canadian relations.

The Globe and Mail named Senator Omidvar as its Nation Builder of the Decade for Citizenship in 2010. She was named to the inaugural Global Diversity List sponsored by The Economist magazine in 2015, as one of the Top 10 Diversity Champions worldwide. In 2016, she also received Lifetime Achievement Awards from CivicAction and the Canadian Urban Institute, honouring her strong commitment to civic leadership and city building. In 2018, Senator Omidvar was named as one of the RBC Top 25 Canadian Immigrant Award winners and in 2019 she received the Dr. Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award from Tufts University.

René Cormier, Independent Senators Group, Province: New Brunswick (New Brunswick)

Biography

The Honourable René Cormier joined the Senate of Canada on November 15, 2016, as an independent senator from New Brunswick.

Cormier is committed to the defense and promotion of language rights, human rights and cultural diplomacy. He currently chairs the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. He has also served on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The Honourable René Cormier is actively involved in parliamentary associations, interparliamentary groups and friendship groups. In particular, he is Vice-Chair of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association and Vice-Chair of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association. In addition, he serves as the Second Vice-President for North America of the Executive Committee of the Open Parliament Network of ParlAmericas.

Senator Cormier is also the co-chair of the Canadian Pride Caucus, of which he is one of the founders. This Caucus is composed of Canadian Senators and Members of Parliament from different political parties. The main objective of the Caucus is to work in a non-partisan manner to advance the rights of 2SLGBTQI+ people in Canada and elsewhere, while ensuring dialogue with organizations in society.

A committed man of action, Senator Cormier has a long track record in the field of arts and culture. Educated in music at l'Université du Québec à Montréal and in theatre at l'École internationale Jacques LeCoq, in Paris, this multidisciplinary artist has held a number of positions within Canada's cultural ecosystem, including that of artistic director, director, actor, musician, composer, cultural manager, and announcer.

A recognized leader, Senator Cormier worked for nearly forty years to ensure that arts and culture play a bigger role in every aspect of Acadian and Canadian society. He has chaired a number of national and international organizations, including the Commission internationale du théâtre francophone (CITF), the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française (FCCF), l'Association des théâtres francophones du Canada (ATFC), and the New Brunswick Arts Council. He has also sat on a number of boards of directors, including that of TV5 Québec-Canada, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, and the Atlantic Visual Arts Festival.

Throughout his career, he has led countless cultural organizations and events, including providing direction for and presenting a number of variety shows on Radio-Canada television, providing artistic and general direction at the Théâtre populaire d'Acadie, artistic direction for the National Arts Centre biennial Zones Théâtrales, artistic direction for the 2009 Congrès mondial acadien, and management of the États généraux des arts et de la culture dans la société acadienne au Nouveau-Brunswick within the Association acadienne des artistes professionnelles du Nouveau-Brunswick. In that role, Senator Cormier worked with his colleagues on bringing together various linguistic and cultural communities in his native province.

A lifelong Acadian activist, from June 2015 until his appointment to the Upper Chamber, Senator Cormier presided over la Société Nationale de l'Acadie (SNA), the representative organization for the Acadian people in Atlantic Canada, nationally and internationally.

Senator Cormier is recognized for his integrity, his professionalism, his ability to bring people together, and his motivational skills. He has earned many recognitions throughout his career, including The Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal (2023), an honorary doctorate in arts and culture from the Université de Moncton (2018), l'Ordre des francophones d'Amérique (2008), the Order of Arts and Letters of France (2003), the Jean-Claude Marcus Award for his contribution to francophone theatre in Canada (2005), the Economic Council of New Brunswick manager of the year Award in 2000, and the Éloize Award for theatre artist of the year (1998).

Senator René Cormier lives in Caraquet, New Brunswick, a vibrant Acadian municipality known as the cultural capital of Acadie.

Donna Dasko, Independent Senators Group, Province: Ontario (Ontario)

Biography

Donna Dasko was appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on June 6, 2018.

She is a respected national pollster, media commentator, and private sector business leader with considerable public policy experience. She holds a Ph.D. and MA from the University of Toronto and a BA (Hons) from the University of Manitoba.

Dr. Dasko was formerly Senior Vice-President of Environics Research Group Ltd, and built the firm from a small consultancy into one of Canada's leading research firms. During her career, she led major research studies for federal and provincial departments and agencies, private sector clients, and NGOs, in areas including the economy, budget priorities, tobacco control, health promotion, national unity, and many others. She was a leader in developing media-sponsored polling including the Globe-Environics Poll and election and special feature polling for the CBC.

As a community volunteer, she served in many roles including President of St. Stephen's Community House, Director of the United Way of Greater Toronto, Governor of the Canadian Unity Council (devoted to Canadian unity and federalism), Chair of the National CEO Roundtable for the Alzheimer Society, and Advisor to GreenPac (which promotes environmental leadership).

Dr. Dasko's passion for the promotion of women in politics has guided much of her advocacy. She is a Co-Founder and former National Chair of Equal Voice, a non-partisan organization aimed at electing more women in Canada. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), which promotes equality rights for women. In 2015, she co-founded the Campaign for an Equal Senate for Canada, an initiative to promote a gender-equal Senate. She works with National Democratic Institute on issues related to women in politics internationally.

She is a Senior Fellow at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy and taught in its Master's program before her Senate appointment. She is a member of Statistics Canada's Advisory Committee on Social Conditions.

Dr. Dasko was born and raised in Winnipeg. She has 2 children, a daughter and son.

Frances Lankin, Independent Senators Group, Province: Ontario (Ontario)

Biography

Frances Lankin has been a lifelong advocate for workers' and women's rights.

Lankin served for 11 years in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario (1990 to 2001), holding the positions of Minister of Government Services and Chair of Management Board, Minister of Health and Long Term Care and Minister of Economic Development and Trade. She also spent more than 10 years as the CEO of United Way Toronto.

She has contributed to a number of diverse government bodies and initiatives, including as a Member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Co-Chair of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Federal Grants and Contributions, Co-Commissioner of the Commission for the Reform of Social Assistance in Ontario, and Member of the Premier's Advisory Council on Government Business Assets.

Lankin has served on several Crown, not-for-profit, charitable and corporate boards, including those of Equal Voice, The Canadian Foundation for Economic Education, the Toronto City Summit Alliance, the University of Toronto's School of Public Policy Advisory Committee, the Board of the Ontario Hospital Association, the Board of the Literary Review of Canada, the Mowat Centre's Advisory Committee, the National NewsMedia Council, the Ontario Press Council, the Institute of Corporate Directors, Metrolinx, Hydro One and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

Lankin is a Member of Privy Council and a Member of the Order of Canada.

She has received Honorary Doctorates from Queen's University, Ryerson University, the University of Windsor, and Nipissing University and is a recipient of the Queen's Golden Jubilee and Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medals. She is also the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions for her community work and involvement in the charitable sector.

Lankin was appointed to the Senate on March 18, 2016. She currently serves as a Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), she was a Member and Deputy Chair of the Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament Committee and Steering Committee, she was a Member of the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, of the Modernization special committee, of the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee (CIBA), of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and of National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Senate Committee.

Rosemary Moodie, Independent Senators Group, Province: Ontario (Ontario)

Biography

Appointed to the Senate of Canada by the Governor-General of Canada, on December 12, 2018. Dr. Moodie is an independent Senator representing Ontario and sits on the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. She is Co-Chair of the Parliamentary Black Caucus and Chair of the African Canadian Senators Group.

Senator Moodie is a Jamaican-born paediatrician and neonatologist. After graduating from the University of the West Indies, she completed postgraduate training in Paediatric and Neonatal/Perinatal Medicine at Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. She is professor of Paediatrics at the University of Toronto and is a senior neonatologist and clinical teacher at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. She is Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her vibrant community paediatric practice serves neighbourhood priority areas in Toronto. She obtained a Master of Business Administration, Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and a Master of Public Administration, School of Policy Studies at Queen's University.

Senator Moodie is a well-recognized national and international medical leader. She has supported organizations and stakeholders in policy development and advocacy to improve health equity and expand quality health care access to the most vulnerable, underserved and marginalized population. Her work included Corporate Chief of Paediatrics and Medical Director of the Regional Maternal Child Program Rouge Valley Health System; Maternal, Child, Youth, and Gynaecology Lead for Central East Local Health Integration Network; and regional and provincial committees, such as the Child Health Network and Provincial Council of Children's Health. Her expertise also includes health care planning locally and internationally.

Senator Moodie has been a strong advocate for woman and girls. Her contributions to reducing social inequities and health disparities among children and communities have been significant. She has served on numerous not-for-profit boards in health, education and social development including the President and Board Chair of the YWCA Toronto when the Elm Centre was completed. (The Elm Centre is Canada's largest affordable housing project for single low-income women, women with mental health and addiction issues, and families of Indigenous ancestry), the inaugural Board of Directors for Unity Health Toronto, and the Scotiabank Jamaica Foundation.

As a Senator, she continues advocating for children and promoting equal opportunity and inclusion. She put forth a bill to establish the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Youth in Canada, which has received the endorsement of multiple organizations that serve and support children and youth in Canada. Her office led a national consultation with children and youth and the need for a federal commissioner. The report will be released in the Spring of 2022. She repeatedly advocated for disaggregated data and race-based data collection that has led the Senate Emergency Debate on Racism.

Senator Moodie has received many awards and distinctions as recognition of her service including:

the Order of Ontario
the Order of Distinction - Commander Rank from the Government of Jamaica
City of Toronto - Access and Human Rights Constance E. Hamilton Award on the Status of Women; Ontario Medical Association - Presidential Award
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons - Prix d'excellence - Specialist of the Year
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario - Council Award
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto - Top 10 High Achieving Women Canadian Paediatric Society - Distinguished Community Paediatrician
University of Toronto Alumni Association - Community Engagement Award
Harry Jerome Health Sciences Award
Top 25 Canadian Women of Influence
100 Accomplished Black Canadian Women
The University of the West Indies Alumni -Distinguished Service Award for Maternal and Child Health
Canadian Paediatric Society - Award of Merit; and Ontario Medical Association -Glenn Sawyer Community Service Award

Chantal Petitclerc, Independent Senators Group, Province: Quebec (Grandville)

Biography

The Honourable Chantal Petitclerc is not only an internationally renowned athlete, but also a compassionate person. When she was 13 years old, she lost the use of her legs in an accident. While Petitclerc was developing her skills as a wheelchair athlete, she pursued her studies, first in social sciences at the CEGEP de Sainte-Foy and then in history at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. She overcame adversity and many obstacles to become a proven leader in the sports world. Her gold medals in the Paralympic Games, Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games, the various awards and accolades she has received, and her appointment as Team Canada's Chef de Mission for the Rio Paralympic Games are all markers of her success.

Her many achievements and her personal journey have also made her an in-demand public speaker, recognized across Canada. She has been the spokesperson for Défi sportif AlterGo for 17 years, and is an ambassador for the international organization Right to Play. A tireless advocate for the contributions people with disabilities have made to our society, she plays a definitive role in building a more inclusive society. Her example inspires people to overcome their obstacles and achieve their full potential.

Through her experiences, Senator Petitclerc has also learned a lot about the particular characteristics of various communities, as well as how decisions are made at the national level. As someone who has functional limitations herself, she has a good understanding of the needs of various minority communities and would like to ensure their voices are heard. The Senator is a Companion of the Order of Canada and a Knight of the Order of Quebec. She received the Lou Marsh Trophy for Canadian Athlete of the Year and was inducted into the Canadian Paralympic Hall of Fame. She has also received four honorary doctorates. In addition, Senator Petitclerc sits on various committees and boards of directors, where she provides her dynamic and unique perspective.

Jane Cordy - Deputy Chair, Progressive Senate Group, Province: Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia)

Biography

Jane Cordy is a senator for Nova Scotia and is currently Leader of the Progressive Senate Group. She is Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.

Born in Sydney, Nova Scotia, she is a graduate of the Nova Scotia Teachers College and Mount St. Vincent University. She taught elementary school for 30 years in Nova Scotia, teaching in Sydney, New Glasgow and the Halifax Regional Municipality until she was appointed to the Senate by the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien on June 9th, 2000.

Senator Cordy has served as vice-chair of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission and was also the chair of the Board of Referees for employment insurance. She also served on the Board of Phoenix House for Youth, was a Board Member of Mount Saint Vincent University and served on Prime Minister Chrétien's task force on seniors.

As past chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, Senator Cordy served as an international vice president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly representing North America on the executive. She continues to be involved with the NATO Parliamentary Association and is currently a vice-chair of the Committee on Democracy and Security's Sub-Committee on Resilience and Civil Security.

An active member of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, Senator Cordy currently serves as co-Chair of the Canada-US IPG Great Lakes St. Lawrence Sub-Group which focuses on protecting the economic, environmental, and social aspects of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence.

She has a particular interest in issues related to mental health, seniors and aging, early education and children. As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, she participated in the study of issues relating to mental health, mental illness and addictions which culminated in the comprehensive report "Out of the Shadows at Last". She also served as a member of the Special Senate Committee on Aging, which studied the implications of an aging society in Canada.

Wanda Thomas Bernard, Progressive Senate Group, Province: Nova Scotia (East Preston)

Biography

Dr. Wanda Thomas Bernard is a highly regarded social worker, educator, researcher, community activist and advocate of social change. She has worked in mental health at the provincial level, in rural community practice at the municipal level, and, since 1990, as a professor at the Dalhousie School of Social Work, where she also served as director for a decade.

In 2016, she was appointed Special Advisor on Diversity and Inclusiveness at Dalhousie University and she is the first African Nova Scotian to hold a tenure track position at Dalhousie University and to be promoted to full professor. Dr. Thomas Bernard has worked with provincial organizations to bring diversity to the political processes in Nova Scotia and teach community members about Canada's legislative process and citizen engagement. She is a founding member of the Association of Black Social Workers (ABSW) which helps address the needs of marginalized citizens, especially those of African descent.

As a former member of the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and as its past Chair, was instrumental in the development of advice to ministers regarding frameworks for gender violence prevention and health equity. At the national level, she has served as a member of the National Coalition of Advisory Councils on the Status of Women. She has served as an expert witness in human rights cases and has presented at many local, national and international forums.

Dr. Thomas Bernard has received many honours for her work and community leadership, notably the Order of Nova Scotia and the Order of Canada.

Sharon Burey, Canadian Senators Group, Province: Ontario (Ontario)

Biography

Sharon Burey is a pediatrician and recognized leader for the health and well-being of children in Ontario, who has dedicated her career to children's mental health, equity, and social justice. Senator Burey was named to the Senate of Canada by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on November 21, 2022.

Dr. Burey emigrated from Jamaica in 1976 and has practised as a behavioural pediatrician in Ontario for over 30 years. She has been an adjunct professor of pediatrics at Western University since 2009.

As a health advocacy and policy leader, Dr. Burey has founded Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Awareness Windsor.

She serves as a member of the Pediatricians of Ontario Executive Council and the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) Health Policy Committee. Dr. Burey was also a pediatrics delegate to the OMA Council and a member of the OMA Women Committee.

Dr. Burey was the first woman of colour to hold the position of president of the Pediatricians Alliance of Ontario, which also serves as the Ontario Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Dr. Burey's work as a health advocate has been recognized with numerous honours and awards. During her tenure as president of the Pediatricians Alliance of Ontario (PAO) the chapter received the Ontario Chapter Excellence Award and the Special Achievement Award from the American Academy of Pediatrics. She received the Excellence in Health Care Award from the North American Black Historical Museum and Cultural Centre. As Co-Chairperson of the Medical Issues Committee, Dr. Burey was also recognized for her outstanding service to the Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse in Windsor-Essex County. Most recently, Dr. Burey received the Section Service Award in recognition of her significant service to the OMA and medical profession.

Dr. Burey attended Western University, where she received a Bachelor of Science in Biology. She completed her medical degree and specialty training in pediatrics at Dalhousie University, and she recently graduated with a Mini-MBA in Physician Business Leadership at York University.

F. Gigi Osler, Canadian Senators Group, Province: Manitoba (Manitoba)

Biography

Senator Osler was appointed to the Senate of Canada on September 26, 2022.

Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler is an internationally renowned surgeon and a dedicated advocate for health and health care. Born and raised in Winnipeg to immigrant parents from the Philippines and India, she completed her medical school and residency training in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Manitoba. She then did further subspecialty training at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. Dr. Osler holds a Graduate Certificate in Global Surgical Care from the University of British Columbia and has completed the Director's Education Program from the Institute of Corporate Directors and the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

Senator Osler is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Manitoba and was the Head of the Section or Otolaryngology-Head and Neck at St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg from 2010 to 2019. In 2018, she became the first female surgeon and the first racialized woman elected as President of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA). While at the CMA she championed principles of equity, diversity and inclusion within medicine and led the development of the CMA's first ever policy on equity and diversity. Senator Osler has held leadership roles with the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, was the 2021-22 President of the Federation of Medical Women of Canada, the 2022 to 2022 Chair of the Canadian Medical Forum, and Co-Chair of the Virtual Care Task Force from 2019 to 2022.

She is the recipient of numerous honours and awards.

Senator Osler currently sits on the Standing Committee of Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Judith G. Seidman, Conservative Party of Canada, Province: Quebec (De la Durantaye)

Biography

The Honourable Judith G. Seidman is an epidemiologist, health researcher, and social services advisor who was appointed to the Senate of Canada on August 27th, 2009.

She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature, a Bachelor of Social Work degree in Health, and a Master of Social Work degree in Health from McGill University. She was the recipient of the J.W. McConnell Memorial Graduate Fellowship from the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research (McGill). As a PhD candidate in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University, she received a doctoral fellowship from the National Health Research and Development Program.

Prior to her appointment to the Senate, she was an active health research professional in the McGill University Health Centre network in Montreal, Quebec.

Born in Montreal, Senator Seidman has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to public service. Her community involvement has focused on the education and health sectors, and she has served on many committees and boards including McGill Society of Montreal, the Education Task Force of the McGill Centre for Studies in Aging and the Evaluation Committee for Community Health Research Program of Montreal.

Following her appointment to the Senate, Senator Seidman has been an active member of many committees. In 2015, she served on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, which informed the development of Canada's legislative framework governing medical assistance in dying. She also served as Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Of late, while continuing to be a strong advocate for health and social issues in her role as a senator, Senator Seidman currently sits on committees that are responsible for the internal administration of the Senate.

She is a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (CIBA) which considers all matters of a financial or administrative nature relating to the internal management of the Senate. She also serves as both Deputy Chair of CIBA's Sub-Committee on Human Resources (HRRH) and Sub-Committee on Diversity (DVSC).

On December 16, 2020, Senator Seidman was elected Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators (CONF), the committee responsible for all matters relating to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code.

Patrick Brazeau, Non-affiliated, Province: Quebec (Repentigny)

Biography

Born in Maniwaki, Quebec, Patrick Brazeau is a member of the Algonquin community of Kitigan Zibi. Patrick was National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) from February 2006- January 2009.

As CAP's National Chief, Patrick was a vocal proponent of the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Repealing section 67 granted the same protective measures for human rights to citizens living under the Indian Act granted to all other since 1978.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper named him to the Senate in December 2008, and he currently sits as an Independent Algonquin Senator. This enables him to consider legislation strictly on its merit without concern for partisan matters. He is the third youngest Senator ever appointed and is currently the youngest sitting Senator.

Patrick believes that all must work together to find ways to support those with mental health difficulties. He speaks openly about his own firsthand experiences hoping to inspire others to seek help when they need it. As a survivor of two suicide attempts, he encourages men and boys to share their emotional and mental challenges with others and to avoid shutting themselves down or numbing themselves through self-medication.

He supported the efforts to hold an inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. In 2012, he performed an original song dedicated to these women and girls, "Please Come Back to Me", live on CTV's Power Play.

Patrick is a vigorous advocate of accountability, responsibility, and transparency regarding Indigenous affairs. He is vocal proponent for the replacement of the Indian Act with more progressive legislation that aims to reconstitute true historical First Nations, including authority over their own affairs.

Patrick is always seeking ways to reform the system of Indian Reserves where poverty and hopelessness remain pervasive. He believes this hopelessness must be replaced with conditions that support the mental health and well-being of Indigenous youth. He believes Reparation before Reconciliation is needed by the federal government for Indigenous generational survivors and their families.

Patrick served in the Canadian Armed Forces (Naval Reserve/HMCS Carleton) and has a second-degree black belt in Karate. He holds a diploma in Social Sciences from Heritage College and has also studied Civil Law at the University of Ottawa.

Patrick also took part in a famous boxing match with Justin Trudeau that did not end so well for him. Nevertheless, he is proud to have taken part in raising more than $250,000 for cancer research and on a personal level, was able to raise twice as much money as Mr. Trudeau.

Finally, Patrick has introduced Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages). If passed, this bill would ensure that consumers are aware of the direct causal link between alcohol consumption and at least seven fatal cancers. With only one in four Canadians aware that alcohol is a class one carcinogen, Patrick believes it is essential to provide sound, clear, and honest medical information directly on the label. Given the well-financed and well-organized lobbying efforts of the alcohol industry in opposition to this bill, Patrick welcomes the support of the public and asks them to write their Member of Parliament and Senators about alcohol cancer warning labels.

Page details

2024-09-26

SOCI Committee briefing binder: Appearance by the Minister of Labour and Seniors - June 11, 2024

On this page

1. Opening remarks

1.a. Minister's opening remarks - Podium

2. Legislation

2.a. Copy of Bill C-58

2.b. Clause by clause analysis

Clause 1 - Subsection 12.001(1) of the Canada Labour Code (Code) is replaced by the following:

Clause 2 - Section 16 of the Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (m.1):

Clause 3 - Subsection 22(1) of the Code is replaced by the following:

Clause 4 - Subsection 29(1.1) of the Code is replaced by the following:

Clause 5 - Section 87.2 of the Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

Subclause 6(1) - Subsections 87.4(2) to (5) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(2) Agreement

(2.1) For greater certainty

(3) Filing with the Minister and Board

(4) If no agreement entered into

(5) Referral

Subclause 6(2) - The portion of subsection 87.4(6) of the Code before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Subclause 6(3) - Section 87.4 of the Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):

(6.1) Time limit

(6.2) Late order or decision not invalid

(6.3) For greater certainty

(6.4) Filing of an agreement before decision

Clause 7 - Section 87.6 of the Code is replaced by the following:

Clause 8 - Paragraph 89(1)(e) of the Code is replaced by the following:

Subclause 9(1) - Subsection 94(2.1) of the Code is repealed.

Subclause 9(2) - Section 94 of the Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Prohibition relating to replacement workers

(5) Clarification - continuing services

(6) Prohibition relating to employees in the bargaining unit

(7) Exception - threat, destruction or damage

Paragraph 94(7)(a)

Paragraph 94(7)(b)

Paragraph 94(7)(c)

(8) For greater certainty

Clause 10 - Paragraph 99(1)(b.3) of the Code is replaced by the following:

Clause 11 - The Code is amended by adding the following after section 99:

(1) Time limit

(2) Copy of decision and order

Clause 12 - The Code is amended by adding the following after section 100:

Clause 13 - Section 111 of the Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (f):

Clause 14 - The Code is amended by adding the following after section 111:

(1) Administrative monetary penalties

(2) Violation or Offence

Clause 15 - Paragraph 14(f) of the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012 (CIRB Regulations) is replaced by the following:

Clause 16 - Paragraph 41.1(f) of the CIRB Regulations is replaced by the following:

Subclause 17(1) - Words and expressions

Subclause 17(2) - Maintenance of activities

Subclause 17(3) - Prohibitions - uses of services during strikes and lockouts

Clause 18 - Twelve months after royal assent

2.c. Q's & A's

Table of Contents

General

Q1: What does Bill C-58 do?

Q2: Why is the Government banning the use of replacement workers?

Q3: What is Part I of the Canada Labour Code and to whom does it apply?

Q4: Who do the proposed amendments apply to?

Q5: Does this apply to the public service?

Q6: What other provinces or territories prohibit replacement workers?

Q7: How does C-58 compare to BC and Quebec?

Q8: How does Bill C-58 compare to Manitoba's bill?

Q9: What international jurisdictions ban replacement workers?

Q10: What is the approximate timeline to implement this measure?

Q11: Why would Bill C-58 come into force 12 months after Royal Assent?

Q12: Did the Government do consultations before introducing Bill C-58? What stakeholders did you consult?

Q13: What amendments were made to Bill C-58 during committee study?

Replacement workers

Q14: How does the existing replacement workers prohibition work? Where does it come from?

Q15: How are replacement workers being defined in Bill C-58?

Q16: Are employers currently allowed to use replacement workers during a work stoppage under the Code?

Q17: Are there any workers the employer can use to do the work of striking or locked out workers?

Q18: How is the current ban on replacement workers enforced?

Q19: How would the new prohibition be enforced?

Q20: Are there any exceptions to the prohibition?

Q21: Would the public be at risk if employers were no longer permitted to use replacement workers?

Q22: How often are replacement workers used in federally regulated sectors?

Maintenance of activities

Q23: What is the maintenance of activities process under the Canada Labour Code?

Q24: How does the current maintenance of activities process work?