Human Resources Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Nothing has been announced or provided, though.

[Ginette Brazeau]

There is ongoing discussion on the amounts that could be potentially transferred to the ATSSC.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

We had unions here saying that the 90-day period is too long and should be 45 days. Would that dramatically increase the resources that you would need to deal with issues?

[Ginette Brazeau]

Again, it will put pressure on the board, and whether we'll be able to meet that 45-day timeline.... If that's what results from this committee and that's what Parliament adopts, it will be challenging for the board to be able to meet that time frame with the existing resources, and it's not only that: Everything will be focused on that work, and the rest of the caseload will be delayed further.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It sounds like if you're having trouble making ends meet now, and with additional work and without additional resources, you won't be able to do that.

[Ginette Brazeau]

It will be challenging to meet the timelines.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you.

[Ginette Brazeau]

Also, we'll see an increase in processing times.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ghiz, you obviously don't agree with this bill.

We had Mr. Strickland from Canada's Building Trades Unions here earlier this week. He talked about an employer, LTS. They refused to meet with the union for bargaining. They went two years without a collective agreement. Then the union went on strike, and because they could bring in replacement workers, the strike went on for six years.

You say this bill isn't necessary, but how can you justify hard-working families not having a collective agreement for eight years and being on strike for six years because the employer just brought in replacement workers and said “too bad” to these families?

[Robert Ghiz]

I'm not aware of the situation with the builders. What I can say is that the amendments we're proposing to the bill would not involve replacement workers; they would involve workers who are already employed by the specific company that had the expertise to be able to continue to maintain those services.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 15 seconds, Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I think I'll stop there. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you. I'm going to hold everybody pretty close so that we can get through the two rounds.

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

We'll go to Mr. Sheehan for six minutes or less.

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

Thank you very much.

Following up on Mr. Seeback's questioning to Ginette, we talked about the resources, and you keep referring to timelines. Step by step, what are the timelines that would be needed? I know we have stuff here, but there are a lot of people who are probably watching from coast to coast to coast, so if you could go through the steps that would be needed....

[Ginette Brazeau]

For clarification, are you referring to the timeline of dealing with these cases?

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

Yes, in order to.... How is it now, I suppose, and how would Bill C-58 change those timelines, potentially?

[Ginette Brazeau]

My reading of the bill and the requirements in the bill for the board to deal with these matters in 90 days means that a lot of our resources, if not all, will be focused on these types of applications—replacement workers and maintenance of activities—because we are asked to deal with these on an expedited basis. In the case of maintenance of activities, it's within 90 days.

We have only five full-time vice-chairs who can deal with the board's caseload, as I mentioned, and three who are part time. We have the ability to use external adjudicators, but the resources need to accompany that, because we need to pay these external adjudicators.

With the budget envelope we have now, if all our resources go towards maintenance of activities and replacement workers, there will be very few resources for other types of cases. We will therefore see an increased processing time for other types of cases—“just dismissal” cases, health and safety matters—that come to us. They'll have to take a back seat if this bill mandates a 90-day turnaround time on maintenance of activities. Right now it takes us, on average, 150 days, so we need to allot more resources and change the way we deal with these matters in order to meet the 90-day timeline, if we can.

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

There have been suggestions at this committee that the length of time should go from 90 to 45 days. Do you have a brief comment on that, for the record?

[Ginette Brazeau]

That would be a challenge, certainly, even with additional resources.

When dealing with maintenance of activities, we do have to hear from the union and from the employer and consider the services being offered by the employer. We need to be fair to the parties. We need to ensure that principles of natural justice are respected. To do that within 45 days on questions that are of that importance is.... It will be challenging to do that in 45 days.

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

Coming into force as well has been talked about. Through the legislation, it's about 18 months. It has been suggested that this time be shortened, perhaps lengthened or stay the same. Do you have comments on the coming into force—in particular, the 18 months not going longer but shorter, from 18 months to something shorter?

[Ginette Brazeau]

As I mentioned in my remarks, there are two areas we need to focus to ensure we can implement this legislation properly. One is the resources and the appointment of additional vice-chairs. Neither of those matters is within the board's control. The appointment of additional vice-chairs is a Governor in Council appointment. That's under the leadership of the Privy Council Office, and it involves a process that includes cabinet ratification. It takes a long time to appoint additional vice-chairs to the board.

Obtaining resources and making sure we have those resources available for the board requires the approval of Treasury Board and others, so that process can also be lengthy.

On the internal board rules and regulations, we've already started thinking about what we could change in terms of our processing of these matters, but it's difficult to go out and consult with our stakeholders on the new rules before having the bill in place or before Parliament adopts it. We don't want to pre-empt or presume that Parliament will adopt the legislation, so we'd want a bit of time to complete that work to make sure that we have all those mechanisms in place to ensure appropriate implementation.

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

I've heard from both the union side and the employer side that you're very well respected.

What advice would you give to employers and unions to get ready for Bill C-58?

[Ginette Brazeau]

The advice that I would give in any dispute that comes before the board is this: How can we help you achieve agreement at the table?

One thing I would say—and thank you for the comment about the board's reputation—is that I think that the board's reputation is due to its credibility, its expertise and its ability to intervene in a timely fashion. If we can't do that going forward....

One thing employers and unions agree on is that the institutions that support collective bargaining are critical to making the collective bargaining system work. If there is legislation that is likely to change or affect that, it's concerning to me, and I would ask that we be supported.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Brazeau.

Thank you, Mr. Sheehan.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Brazeau, I will echo the others and say that the Canada Industrial Relations Board plays a major role in the balance of power and labour relations in Canada. Thank you for your testimony.

I'm surprised to learn that you deal with cases that fall under all parts of the Canada Labour Code. In Quebec, occupational health and safety issues are handled by a separate commission. I think it would be nice to see that at the federal level as well. I've already said that the Canada Labour Code needs some love and that it should be strengthened. Treating health and safety separately would be one improvement to make, although that's not proposed in Bill C‑58.

This bill is desired and desirable. All the labour organizations that have appeared before our committee so far have reiterated the fact that, to be able to fully implement it, additional resources are needed on the board. That's a role for government. I hope that the government will walk the talk and that, because we want to pass a robust bill to protect the balance of power and give full meaning to the right to strike, the government will be able to allocate the necessary resources to ensure that the bill does that.

I will come back to delays, because it's an important issue, but first I'd like to point out that many witnesses have also told us that there should be an investigative mechanism similar to the one provided for in the Quebec Labour Code that allows workers to enter the workplace to ensure that replacement workers are not being used. It must be said that unions cannot enter the workplace to see whether an offence has been committed or not.

Is that a desirable avenue, in your opinion?