Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Lana Payne]

The problem is the hiring of replacement workers, which prolongs the dispute. Then, you get into a situation where you have more lost days of work as a result of that; whereas, if you're using every incentive possible.... By the way, we have a great team of people in the federal jurisdiction who work as federal conciliators to help parties reach agreements.

The odd time you do get strikes. We had one in the seaway last year. You're all aware of it. It lasted a week, and our union made sure that we got back to the bargaining table. This strike was the first one in 55 years. That should tell you that there is a problem.

When you can bargain collective agreements time and time again, and then all of a sudden you end up with a dispute, which was the first one in 55 years, something builds to that. In this case, it was a very toxic workplace. The only way these workers felt they could get that addressed was to withdraw their labour. By the way, we did get it addressed, and we worked well with the federal government and the federal conciliators to get that dispute resolved.

However, this has also been the problem. Many of these federal employers have always felt that they had two things in their back pockets. They could hire replacement workers, or they felt that the government would intervene on their behalf and would legislate workers back to work and would send it all to binding arbitration. As a result, they never felt that they had to come to the table and bargain fairly.

Now, those things are changing, so you're obviously going to have employers saying that the sky is falling. I would say to you that it is not going to fall. We are going to have a better labour relations system in Canada as a result of this legislation.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That was very well said.

I think I have about a minute left.

You talked about increased conflicts and violence that come with strikes and the use of replacement workers.

For me, I've seen so many instances in the city of Hamilton in different sectors where the use of replacement workers has led to damage to the relationships among the employer, the unions and the employees, which has lasted over a decade, and probably for decades.

Can you talk about that, in terms of what happens after there is an agreement, in instances where replacement workers have been used, and the relationship, then, on a go-forward basis among those three parties, if you want to call them that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Collins and Ms. Payne.

The time has gone by. I have to ensure that everybody gets their time.

Mrs. Vignola, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Payne, Mr. Aylward and Mr. Bolduc, thank you very much for being with us today.

Mr. Bolduc, I'm pleased to meet you today. I'm the daughter of a proud member of the United Steelworkers Local 5778 on the North Shore. My father was heavily involved in the union and I fully understand the struggle you're waging. These are the deceased United Steelworkers Local 5778 members who also paved the way for progress on the Act respecting Occupational Health and Safety in Quebec. The work of unions is very important, and we have to recognize that.

You talked about a measure that's provided for in the current bill, the possibility of hiring subcontractors who could do the work during a strike or lockout. I also saw that when I read the new clause 94(5) that Bill C‑58 would add. Can you tell us what consequences the use of subcontractors could have on the duration and resolution of a labour dispute, as well as on the employer's resolve and desire to sit down at the bargaining table?

[Denis Bolduc]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

After reading the bill, particularly that proposed clause, I used the word “recipe” in my presentation, since this subsection would be tantamount to giving an employer who plans to lock out its employees a recipe to avoid being accused of using replacement workers as defined in the bill. Indeed, an employer who intends to lock out its workers in its contingency plan to force them to accept what they consider unacceptable could decide, based on this clause, to hire one or two subcontractors before sending its notice to bargain. According to the terms of the bill, the employees of that subcontractor would not be considered scabs, even if they performed the tasks assigned to the workers or similar tasks. At least that's our understanding of that clause. Certainly, if an employer applies this provision and uses this trick or recipe, the consequence is that the dispute will last a long time. The employer will be able to prolong the dispute, since there will be people performing the duties of the workers it has locked out.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

When I gave part of my speech on this subject, I was told it was against the law. So do you think that the clause the bill proposes to add doesn't comply with the letter of the law and that the bill currently contains an aberration?

My question is for the three unions.

[Denis Bolduc]

I'd say that this paragraph should be removed because it goes against the objective we're seeking to achieve by passing legislation to prevent the use of scabs. They say they're trying to restore the balance of power between workers and their employer, but at the same time they're providing a way around the objective they're trying to achieve. That makes no sense to me.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bolduc.

Ms. Payne and Mr. Aylward, do you share that opinion and do you find that proposed clause 94(5) of the bill goes against the spirit of the act?

[Chris Aylward]

Yes. If it's left in there, then it's a workaround for employers.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

All three of you mentioned that an 18-month period between royal assent and the act taking effect was unacceptable. What do you fear if the 18-month waiting period is maintained?

I'll start with you, Mr. Aylward.

[Chris Aylward]

This legislation was needed yesterday. There's no need to delay this legislation as long as has been suggested in the piece of legislation. As I said in my submission, when you really look at what would be a reasonable time frame—and I understand it can't be done immediately—when you look at it with respect to what really needs to get done to get this implemented, basically it will take nine months. After royal assent, it should take no more than nine months, because, yes, there is maintenance of activities that would have to go in the legislation and that sort of thing, but waiting 18 months and beyond is totally unacceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm extremely pleased to be here with you today to study this crucial bill. This is an extremely important bill for the rights of workers in federally regulated businesses.

By way of introduction, I'd like to remind you why we came up with a government bill today that proposes anti-scab measures and that's been long awaited by the labour movement and workers for decades.

After a minority government was elected in 2021, the Liberals and the NDP decided to enter into negotiations and reach a support agreement to ensure that Parliament could function and remain stable. One of the NDP's conditions was that anti-scab legislation be adopted. That would be a first, because the Conservatives and the Liberals had always rejected anti-scab legislation.

So we forced the Liberal minority government to agree to introduce anti-scab legislation. This bill may not be perfect and it needs improvement, but for the first time in the history of federal politics, we have the opportunity to protect workers' right in a labour dispute, be it a strike or a lockout.

We in the NDP are proud to have been able to force the Liberal government's hand and have this discussion today. We're proud to finally have the opportunity to avoid prolonged conflicts, to avoid conflicts with a great deal of tension, to avoid upsetting the balance of power between the union bargaining unit and an employer who, by using replacement workers, is preventing free collective bargaining and acceptable, constitutional pressure by workers.

Mr. Bolduc, we met a few years ago. You were president of the Journal de Québec union during a labour dispute. The situation was under provincial regulation and raised the important issue of remote work. In fact, the Quebec legislation included the concept of “establishment”, which made failing to report to the physical workplace a way to circumvent anti-scab provisions.

I'd like you to tell me how important it is, especially after the pandemic and given how many people work remotely, that this concept of establishment not be included in the current federal bill in order to protect workers who perform their duties remotely, online.

[Denis Bolduc]

You're so right, Mr. Boulerice. Back then in 2007 and 2008 at Journal de Québec, the employer was using workers outside the establishment, but the wire from their computer was entering the building to let them perform the duties of the locked-out workers, of whom I was one. As a result, we had a 16-month conflict. Had the employer not had that option, I'm convinced that the dispute would have been much shorter and would probably have lasted only a few weeks.

It's therefore important to consider new work realities in 2024 in an effort to properly enforce a law like this one. Just cross the river to Gatineau, where over 200 workers from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which is affiliated with the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, are currently locked out. These individuals work mainly in a call centre for Videotron, a subsidiary of Quebecor, the same employer that locked out the Journal de Québec workers. If the concept of “establishment” means a building made of bricks and stones, that employer can use people in Africa, Egypt, Europe or South America to perform the duties of workers who are locked out. So it's crucial that this reality be considered.

In your opening statement, Mr. Boulerice, you talked about the current minority government situation. That's why I emphasized on two or three occasions in my opening remarks how important it is that this bill be passed in the current Parliament.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bolduc. Indeed, the NDP is in as much of a hurry as you are. In any case, this is a bill that should have been introduced 20 or 30 years ago. Quebec passed a bill like this almost 50 years ago, and so did British Columbia. We've seen the impact of that.

You started talking about the current situation. I'll talk to Mr. Aylward about that as well later on. What are the consequences right now of the absence of anti-scab legislation for Videotron workers in Gatineau and for longshoremen at the Port of Quebec, who have been locked out for 18 months?

Their situation is dire. The employer has no incentive to come back to the bargaining table if the labour dispute has no impact on it because it can use workers who do the same job while others are on the street for months. It's quite insulting and difficult for these longshoremen and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

I'll go to Madam Ferreri for five minutes, please.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much to our witnesses here today. I really appreciate the work you do to stand up for our working-class families across this country. It's much appreciated.

Mr. Aylward, I appreciate your testimony today and some of the things you've said. One of the questions I have for you is this: How would you define the difference between a replacement worker and hiring outside consultants?

[Chris Aylward]

You're not going to hire a replacement worker unless you're on strike. You're going to hire a contractor to do this job 12 months of the year. There is the difference.

A replacement worker is going to be called in to do my job, while I'm out striking on the picket line. Things continue to go, to move. The difference between a replacement worker and a contractor is that with that contractor, I'm never going to get that job back. The strike is over. Hopefully, I'm going to be able to go back to my job, and that replacement worker will be gone. However, if you bring in a contractor to take my job, I'm never getting that job back.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

You would say that a contractor or a consultant is worse than a replacement worker, then.

[Chris Aylward]

There's nothing worse than a replacement worker—I'll make that very clear. There's nothing worse than a replacement worker going in to do somebody else's job, while they're out on strike trying to make more money and to do better for their family. There's nothing worse than that.

However, a contractor is a very close second.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I think it's shocking what we've learned. The Liberal government has spent $21 billion on high-priced consultants, contractors and IT middlemen who do no actual IT work. To hear what you're saying today; it really hits home. When we look at the stats of working-class families accessing food banks, they are people who, to your point, are doing exactly what you're saying: they're just doing the right thing. They're waking up, they're going to work, they're trying to provide, and then it's this slap in the face of, you know what, “We're going to hire someone else, we're going to bring in consultants, we're going to hire IT workers".

Now we know a lot of this is under investigation, which is also shocking.

One of the things I would ask you, and I'll just put this on the record, is about how yesterday the PSPC revealed that three additional IT contractors have scammed taxpayers for at least $5 million and that this is being investigated by the RCMP. These frauds go back to 2018. TheMinister of PSPC said that this is the first wave of cases being turned over to the RCMP.

It begs the question of how much has gone to scammers through fraud and forgery. Do you think it's gotten worse? Do you see this as a progressive problem? Where do you think we're at with this?

[Chris Aylward]

I think it has gotten worse, as far as contracting out is concerned. I was pleased to see in last year's budget, the 2023 budget, that they're reducing the use of outside contracting. They're going to reduce that. That's good.

I think the announcement made yesterday by Ministers Anand and Duclos is a positive step forward as well in fixing these issues, because obviously there are issues there.

I think all of that combined is a way forward to make sure that this does not get repeated.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I think I would push back a little against you. I respect your position, but I think that saying that they're doing this doesn't actually align with the facts. I think there is a bit of a discrepancy there between, yes, they've said they're going to do this, and the facts of what's actually happening, obviously in particular “arrive scam”, which has taken a lot of attention. There has been a lot of outside contract work.

I think this comes back to the big question, which you touched on earlier, of morale and mental health within the workplace. I don't know if you have the stats on missed work. Does anybody here have those sorts of numbers on what that looks like for the economy on people who aren't able to come to work because of stress?

I think about my friends at USJE in particular. These are correctional officers. They're put in extremely precarious positions. They're dealing with incredibly difficult situations. I think about officers who are dying by suicide. I think about all of these things, and you touched on it in referring to morale and the toxic workplace—which goes to your point, Ms. Payne—that is created when you are always looking over your shoulder to see if you're going to be replaced or if somebody's going to come in and take that work.

My question would be, do you have a number—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri, but you're over your five minutes. Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Van Bynen, for five minutes, please.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the witnesses coming forward and giving us some insight into what I feel will be historic changes to labour relations.

Subclause 6(1) of Bill C-58 would require that, within 15 days after notice of bargaining collectively has been given, an employer and the union must enter into a maintenance of activities agreement outlining the activities that need to be maintained during the work stoppage. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of that measure?

I'll direct that to Ms. Payne.