Human Resources Committee on April 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gray.

Mr. Sheehan, you have six minutes.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for allowing me to be here today to hear the testimony from the previous group of folks and these folks on this really important legislation ahead of us.

I've been on both sides of the bargaining table. I've bargained for the union and I've bargained with the union. At the end of the day, the best deals are at the table. That's the purpose of this—to keep people at the table. When people walk away from the table, no deals are being done. There are no negotiations.

My first question is for you, Derrick. One thing Bill C-58 talks about is a “maintenance of activities”. Your organization, FETCO, has claimed that this bill will lead to such critical services as 911 being cut off due to a strike. I did some research into the maintenance of activities process. I found that in 2003, Telus reached a maintenance of activities agreement with Telecommunications Workers Union. It stipulated that members would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during the labour dispute to repair telecommunications services for police, fire, ambulance, 911, hospitals and the Coast Guard.

I noticed that in the last panel, Mr. Collins asked the unions if these agreements were normal. In fact, they said they couldn't imagine a scenario where there wouldn't be such an agreement in place.

To FETCO, when you put out communications against the bill, did you know that the maintenance of activities process was meant to maintain these 911 services? There was some reaction from the public, but I would like you to explain that particular scenario that I went through and researched and the importance that 911 services will still continue.

[Derrick Hynes]

I'm going to have to correct the assumption embedded in your question before I attempt to answer your question. In no literature that we put forward to the government did we show any concern that 911 services would not be provided. I didn't write it, and I wrote every submission that FETCO provided in this space. I agree with you that this is a level of service that would be provided and would be captured by a maintenance of services agreement.

To speak more broadly about the maintenance of services, we believe this doesn't solve the problem that the replacement worker bill causes. Maintenance of services agreements are extraordinarily difficult to achieve, in our experience. Unions generally don't like them. Agreeing on the terms of what will be embedded within those agreements is extraordinarily difficult. The bill envisions that this will be done in 14 days, which we think is fantastical, and that the CIRB will then do it in 90 days, which we also agree is equally unlikely.

I guess my response to the overall issue around maintenance of services is that to us it's perplexing that we would introduce a bill that would ban replacement workers, knowing that it will cause the challenges that it will cause around the number and duration of strikes, and somehow imagine that a maintenance of services agreement in the bill will solve these problems. We don't actually think it will.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have heard testimony not only at this committee but also at the trade committee, so I'll correct your assumption as well that replacement workers prolong strikes. Everyone is saying that replacement workers, whether put in place during a lockout or during a strike, prolong the strike, because, again, no one is at the table when they're there. That is what we've heard at this committee and at other committees, and through consultations.

On that note, FETCO had pointed to the track record of previous bills banning the use of replacement workers, which have not been passed in the House of Commons. However, it's important to note the differences between those bills and Bill C-58, which promotes a tripartite approach to consulting with the unions, government and businesses. This included unions and business leaders sitting shoulder to shoulder at multiple round tables. There were extensive consultations that included round tables, 55 stakeholders and 71 written submissions.

I understand that the consultations were even extended to January 31, 2023, and, at FETCO's request, included many other businesses and stakeholders. We listened and we consulted broadly in a tripartite approach, and that informed our legislation.

Was FETCO consulted on the drafting of the bills preceding C-58 that you pointed to as not being successful?

[Derrick Hynes]

There's a lot in your statement, and it's difficult for me to not respond to some of the comments you made.

To the first point about the length and duration of strikes, these are not numbers I'm pulling out of the sky. They are from documented literature produced by institutions such as the C.D. Howe Institute, and esteemed labour economist Morley Gunderson. I don't have time to read you the quotes, but they basically say that if we think banning replacement workers is going to encourage collective bargaining and reduce strike activity, that is frankly not supported by the facts.

To the second point on tripartism, yes, meetings were held around the time this bill was introduced. If I may take 30 seconds to provide some colour to the committee, I was at the last round table meeting, and it was a good session.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Just before I run out of time, I want to bring forward a communication I have in which you talked about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Sheehan—

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

—the absence of workers and emergency communications going down. I wanted to point out....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Sheehan.

Thank you, Mr. Hynes.

The time has run out.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses. I have a question for each of the organizations here.

Before I ask my question, I will tell you that most of us believe that this bill is urgently needed in 2024 for labour relations that currently fall under the Canada Labour Code. Such legislation has existed in Quebec since 1977 and, as many have pointed out, nothing catastrophic has happened since. On the contrary, it has prevented a lot of labour disputes and violence on the picket lines.

Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hynes, Mr. Guénette, my question is the following: Do you recognize the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by our charters?

[Derrick Hynes]

Yes.

[Todd Lewis]

Yes.

[Christina Santini]

We're not against associations. However, we don't want work stoppages, or at least we want to minimize the possibility of work stoppages. Negotiating an agreement at the table is encouraged and that's what we want to see.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

My question wasn't about associations. I was talking about the right to strike, which is recognized by the charters and is the corollary of the right to negotiate.

Do you recognize that the right to strike exists?

[Christina Santini]

I don't deny it.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

It's fundamental.

On the other hand, you want to be able to continue using replacement workers in the event of a strike or lockout. For you, isn't this a denial of the right to strike?

[Christina Santini]

I'd like to quote some data.

Quebec had an average of 70.3 private sector work stoppages between 2013 and 2022, each lasting an average of 89 days, with the provisions that it has in place.

In the federally regulated space, there were only 5.7 work stoppages on average during that same period, and each one lasted an average of 68 days.

The reality is that the best agreements, as even the panel before us has stated, are reached at the table, and that's what we would like to see. We do not want to see a higher incidence of work stoppages, whether they are launched by employers or by employees. That disrupts the supply chains, that affects small businesses and affects the livelihoods of the people employed by small business owners.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

To say that you don't want strikes is pretty heavy-handed, because the right to strike is a recognized right.

When it comes to supply chains and economic interest, the workers you hire in your organizations are essential, fundamentally. We're in a labour shortage situation, and there are no more qualified workers. The right to strike is a legitimate right. Taking away employees' right to strike on the pretext that they are needed does not, in our view, contribute to healthy labour relations. There has to be a balance of power.

As we've shown, conflicts last much longer. There are currently two lockouts in Quebec. At the Port of Quebec, the lockout has been going on for over 18 months, and replacement workers are being called in. It's all well and good for the employer, but operations are not disrupted because other people are doing the work. In Gatineau too, Vidéotron's call centre employees have been locked out for 18 months. Meanwhile, jobs are being relocated and replacement workers are being called in.

Mr. Lewis, do you really consider that the use of replacement workers contributes to harmonious labour relations?

[Todd Lewis]

I will defer to my colleague.

[Brodie Berrigan, Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you for the question.

I'm happy to respond on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

In our view—and not to repeat what Todd mentioned in his opening remarks—what we're proposing here is simply a balanced approach that would keep the lights on and maintain the movement of what we think are very necessary products in Canada—the food that we eat—when there is a labour disruption.

It doesn't undermine the integrity of the collective bargaining processes by preventing a return to full capacity, but it does, at the same time, allow for a means of keeping some minimal level of service and the flow of agricultural goods.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Hynes, would you like to add anything?

[Derrick Hynes]

I would actually agree with most of what you just said. I totally agree with you when you say that the right to strike is a fundamental right.

Where I think we differ is we believe that the right to strike and the use of replacement workers can coexist in a system. I will bring us back to the data. The data shows us that banning replacement workers is not going to do anything to improve this system. Nothing has ever been documented to show that will be an improvement.

We are hearing anecdotal stories. Strikes are horrible. Employers don't want strikes any more than a union worker wants to be on strike, but they are a part of the system. Anyone who has been involved in collective bargaining knows it's difficult. Sometimes they end in work stoppages.

We are arguing that there should be circumstances in which an employer can bring in, on a temporary basis, replacement workers to keep the lights on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us today to study this very important bill. Personally, it's very close to my heart. I think I have a slightly different position from you on this issue.

You've all recognized the fundamental right of workers to exercise pressure tactics and strike. You also talked about balance. Mr. Lewis, you talked about fair bargaining. I think these are notions we can all agree on.

Workers' associations and collective bargaining were made legal in Canada in 1872. This made it possible to civilize labour relations and collectively negotiate contracts in the interests of both parties, even if sometimes one party gains a little more than the other. This has reduced arbitrariness and generally improved the lot of workers.

Much of what we now call the middle class is the result of those decades of negotiation between the two sides to ensure that corporate profits don't just go into the pockets of owners and shareholders, but are shared a little more equally between those who do the work and those who own the factory or company.

Much of this better-shared collective wealth is the result of balance at the bargaining table, where both sides are able to exert pressure on the other, economic or financial pressure. When workers decide to strike, they put pressure on their employer by slowing down or stopping the company's production. When the employer wants to demand concessions from its employees, it can lock them out, which puts pressure on them, since they go without pay and have to rely on their strike fund. This balance of power makes it possible to negotiate at the table and reach a compromise that is satisfactory to both parties, or unsatisfactory to both. That's the nature of compromise, sometimes.

In a strike or lockout, when workers who are out on the street are replaced by scabs, replacement workers, the balance of power is upset. The employer has an undeniable advantage, because production or services are maintained, while the worker on the street sees his balance of power considerably reduced. It's all to the advantage of the employers, who no longer have any reason to return to the bargaining table. This imbalance means that, most of the time, disputes last much longer. Why would the employer return to the bargaining table if his production continues, if his revenues are not affected and if he has no reason to negotiate with the workers' association?

Mr. Lewis, if we want fair negotiations, there has to be a fair balance of power between the two parties, right?

[Todd Lewis]

We would agree with that, but at the same time, from a producer's standpoint we're not at the table. We are greatly affected by these labour stoppages. You don't even have to call them "labour stoppages". When collective bargaining breaks down and companies suffer a strike, farmers suffer as well. I think that's where we're at: Talking about a balance of power is about trying to have some exemptions because, for a producer, when we don't get shipping we don't get paid. If we don't do shipping we lose sales as well, and we never recover from a lost sale—that's gone. To your point, for the balance of power, this is why it's so important for producers to have it recognized that some agriculture products should be moving. Again, it's about food security, both nationally and internationally, and it does affect prices. It's supply and demand: if the supply is cut off, the demand goes up and prices increase.