Bill C-58

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) amend the scope of the prohibition relating to replacement workers by removing the requirement of demonstrating a purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity, by adding persons whose services must not be used during legal strikes and lockouts and by providing certain exceptions;
(b) prohibit employers from using, during a legal strike or lockout intended to involve the cessation of work by all employees in a bargaining unit, the services of an employee in that unit, subject to certain exceptions;
(c) make the contravention by employers of either of those prohibitions an offence punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 per day;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing an administrative monetary penalties scheme for the purpose of promoting compliance with those prohibitions; and
(e) amend the maintenance of activities process in order to, among other things, encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout, encourage faster decision making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when parties are unable to agree and reduce the need for the Minister of Labour to make referrals to the Board.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe this is the last time we'll be meeting with witnesses for our study on Bill C-58.

In order to be historic and do what it's supposed to—prohibit the use of replacement workers—the bill actually has to come into force. It makes no sense that the bill won't come into force until 18 months after it receives royal assent. That doesn't even include how long it will take for it to receive royal assent. What a joke to tell unionized employees who work for Videotron, the Quebec City port and other such employers that, even though the bill was passed, it won't come into force for 18 months. If the government is serious about this legislation, it has to allocate all the resources required for implementation.

Workers' right to strike, a fundamental right protected by the charters, is at stake. However, it will be a long time before all these legislative improvements come into force, improvements that will lead to disputes truly being resolved. As the only explanation, the minister stated clearly that the time frame had been recommended by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We find that totally unacceptable.

What's more, of course strikes cause disruptions, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. It's important to respect the parties to the dispute. When employers use replacement workers, as Videotron has, they aren't respecting the issues. During a lockout, the employer can organize, contract out the work and move call centres outside the country. That is the reality. On top of that, good jobs are lost.

Mr. Ghiz, we are well aware of how important the telecommunications sector is, as are other sectors that deliver essential services. However, does that justify telling workers that it doesn't matter if they want to exercise their right to strike because they can be replaced anyways?

[Dave Carey]

We haven't, not to that degree. I can say that the agriculture sector does have provisions. The longshoremen are prohibited from striking because over the years it was used as leverage, and then Minister MacAulay, in labour, in 1998 amended that. Again, I think the agriculture sector's view is similar to the telecoms' view, which is not about replacing workers. It's about allowing current staff within, say, the railways, to continue to keep the lights on.

I think our view on Bill C-58 is that you do need to take a sector-by-sector approach when allocating through these sorts of blanket bills. We don't have a position on collective bargaining. We respect the unions' abilities to do things. However, we are seeing Canada's reputation challenged globally, with the current legislative framework we have, about our ability to get agriculture products to market.

Agriculture is one in nine jobs, 7% of GDP and $99 billion in exports last year alone. I guess our concern is that BillC-58 would more instability with Bill , but again, our comments would be within the agriculture sector and also within the abilities of the railways, the grain companies and the ports to use current staff, whether they're management or non-unionized, to keep the lights on. Replacement workers can't jump on a railcar and run the thing. They just can't. That's where major labour instability is. We are concerned about the trend of labour instability in our grain supply chains.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

We also heard from one of the witnesses, Charles Smith—I think last week—who is a professor out in Saskatchewan. He had a very compelling argument that traditionally in today's society, employers have always had a bit of an advantage over employees. He talked about how industry groups in general have shied away from bills like this and made the argument that a bill like this could prolong strikes. He presented some evidence in regard to Quebec and B.C. having this type of legislation in place and made the argument and presented it to us that there would actually be fewer strikes when legislation like Bill C-58 is put in place.

Mr. Carey, has your industry group done any research to support the claim that a bill like Bill C-58 could potentially cause more disruption, versus the claim Mr. Smith has made, which is that it actually reduces disruption by creating “industrial peace”, as he referred to it, and creating a better balance between employers and employees?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today as we study this important and historic bill.

I have a comment to start. Mr. Ghiz, your presentation was rather bold, if not provocative. You said that Bill C-58 sought to address a problem that did not exist. I take issue with that.

The dockworkers at the Quebec City port have been locked out for the past 18 months, and every day, they see people taking their jobs and pay. Situations like that aren't limited to ports. They also happen in telecommunications. Sitting behind you, Mr. Ghiz, are four Videotron employees who have been locked out for nearly six months in Gatineau, and replacement workers have been brought in to do their jobs. This is a real problem. In fact, I kindly encourage you to go up to them after the meeting, to talk to them about their situation and find out what the labour dispute is like for them. They have been out on the street for nearly six months.

Ms. Brazeau, you said you couldn't presume what Parliament would decide with respect to the bill. I agree, but since all parties in the House voted in favour of Bill C-58 at second reading, it will probably end up being passed, unless the tide turns and things change significantly.

Is the Canada Industrial Relations Board getting ready for the bill's potential passage?

[Ginette Brazeau]

The board looks at complaints and requests submitted to us. If we receive a request regarding replacement workers, we have fairly broad investigative powers. We have officers in the regions to whom we can delegate the authority to gather information or evidence in the field, in the workplace, that can then be presented to the board and that the parties can rely on to make their views known.

So our powers already include an investigative component. However, if Bill C‑58 passes, we're thinking about how we could use those powers more broadly or differently compared to what we're doing now.

I should point out that we do this kind of investigation in response to a complaint. So there has to be a complaint at the outset.

However, if you're referring to the department's investigative powers, I must say that we already have a model for health, safety and labour standards whereby the department conducts an investigation and the files on which an appeal is based are then forwarded to the board.

I think that would be an additional step in the process.

[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?

[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?

[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?

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

There's certainly no additional funding that's being put forward to deal with the potential increase of cases from C-58. You haven't heard anything about that, have you?

[Ginette Brazeau]

It's very difficult to give an estimate of the actual workload that will result from Bill C-58.

Maybe I can point to the chart for this. If you look at chart 3, which considers the number of matters related to maintenance of activities that are currently dealt with by the board, you will see that in recent years, we've had between 25 and 30 cases related to maintenance of activities. We deal with those, chart number 2, on average in 150 days, 130 days.

You can see that in 2023 and 2024, 14 of those cases were withdrawn. What happens is that because of the current provision in the code related to the maintenance of activities and the timelines that apply, they file with us. Then they ask us to hold the matter in abeyance, because they want to focus on collective bargaining. We don't deal with those matters. The parties reach an agreement, and then they withdraw this application on maintenance of activities, so although we have 26 applications, we don't deal with half of them. Now, as I read the legislation, there will be a lot more pressure for us to deal with these applications.

[Robert Ghiz, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Telecommunications Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss Bill C-58.

When Bill C-58 was introduced, we expressed our concern that the bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist and that for the reasons given to the committee by FETCO last week, it should not become law.

While our position in this regard has not changed, if Parliament decides to pass the bill, it must first be amended to address an issue that should concern all Canadians, including members of this committee.

Canadians rely on telecommunication services every day, and the security and reliability of networks have never been more important. To quote the Government of Canada:

Not only do [telecommunication services] support a wide range of economic and social activities, but they support other critical infrastructure sectors and government services, and are crucial for emergency services and public safety. They are fundamental to the safety, prosperity, and well-being of Canadians.

The same is true for broadcasting and television services, which play a key role in ensuring public safety in Canada.

These services are essential for Canadians. In the event of a power outage caused by a natural disaster, vandalism or another factor, consumers expect their utility and its team to work tirelessly to restore those services. That's exactly what's happening today.

The prohibition on the use of replacement workers in Bill C-58 would significantly weaken service providers' capacity to restore services and protect their networks from disruption during a strike or lockout.

While some argue that requiring employers and the bargaining unit to establish a maintenance of activities agreement before a strike or lockout will mitigate the negative effects of the prohibition on replacement workers, this viewpoint is flawed.

While section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code requires the parties to continue the supply of services to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has previously ruled that section 87.4 does not apply to a potential interruption of telecommunications services during a strike or lockout. As well, the limited exemptions to the prohibition on replacement workers under the proposed amendments to section 94 of the code are not sufficient to ensure the continuity of telecommunications and broadcasting services during a strike or lockout.

Mr. Chair, I know you are intimately familiar with the devastation that hurricane Fiona caused in Prince Edward Island and surrounding provinces. Imagine if telecom workers had been on strike when the storm hit our province. Under Bill C-58, the affected telecom providers could not use striking workers with the necessary experience and skill to protect and restore services or hire temporary replacement workers or contractors. This would have been unacceptable to Atlantic Canadians and should be unacceptable to Parliament.

Experts predict that 2024 could be one of the most active Atlantic hurricane seasons on record. Scientists say that they are bracing for what could be another year of devastating wildfires across Canada, and cybersecurity threats, as we know, are on the rise. Compromising our telecommunications and broadcasting systems' reliability, resilience and security in the context of a strike or lockout undermines the extensive and detailed steps taken by the government under its telecommunications reliability agenda. It also runs counter to Canadians' expectations that these critical services will be there for them when they need them most.

While we respect the right to strike, there must be a balance between workers' rights and the public good. We ask the committee to recommend to Parliament that Bill C-58 be amended to ensure that during a strike or lockout, service providers, their employees and the bargaining units must continue providing services necessary to repair and restore telecommunications broadcasting services and to perform critical maintenance work.

In fact, we know from a recent Nanos poll that 95% of Canadians say that it is important that telecommunications services remain available without disruption and that eight in 10 Canadians think that telecommunications companies and their employees should be required to continue to provide the services needed to prevent and repair disruptions even when there is a strike or lockout.

The amendment would be like one made by Parliament to ensure that labour disputes in the longshoring industry do not interrupt the movement of grain vessels.

We've provided the committee with wording for the suggested amendment and a couple of other amendments that we ask the committee to please consider.

We would be happy to discuss these during the remainder of the meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Canola Growers Association to speak to you today during your study of Bill C-58.

The CCGA is a national association governed by a board of farmer-directors and represents Canada's 43,000 canola farmers on issues and policies that impact on-farm profitability.

I recognize this isn't the House agriculture committee, so I'll briefly provide an overview of our sector.

Canada typically produces 20 million tonnes of canola annually and exports over 90%, in three forms: seed, oil or meal. These products are exported to 50 countries, and in 2023 our exports were worth $15.8 billion. Canada's the world's largest producer and exporter of canola, and our industry supports 207,000 jobs and contributes $29.9 billion to the Canadian economy annually.

Canola travels, on average, over 1,500 kilometres from the farm where it is grown to an export position. There is no alternative in long-distance transportation of our products across the continent: We are completely reliant on Canada's two class I railways to get the majority of our product to market, both now and into the future.

Transportation of grain is one of several commercial elements that directly affect the prices offered to farmers. When issues arise in the supply chain, the price farmers receive for their grain can drop, even at a time when commodity prices may be high in the global marketplace. When rail service is disrupted, the worst-case scenario is that space in grain elevators and process facilities becomes full, and then grain companies stop buying grain and accepting deliveries from farmers. This can occur even when a farmer has an existing contract for delivery, potentially straining their ability to have cash flow into their operations. This is the major reason that western Canadian farmers have such an interest in rail transportation: It directly affects individual farmer income, and beyond that, the ability of Canada's railways to move grain to export critically affects Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of canola to the world.

Today's grain supply chain is predicated on having the right grain in the right place at the right time. There are a lot of moving parts in this complex system, including trucks, inland collection points, railways, port terminal facilities and marine vessels. All are needed in order to move canola from the Prairies, where it is grown, to international customers, where it is demanded. In such a complex system, in any given year there will inevitably be incidents and events that negatively impact the fluidity and on-time execution of the supply chain. Weather, infrastructure damage and other unforeseen events are often outside our influence or control. In Canada we have enough risk to our supply chains from natural causes in any given year, so ones of our own making must be avoided.

Broadly speaking, elements we do have control over are labour agreements and organized work environments. However, we have observed ongoing and concerning levels of instability between our class I railways and their labour in recent years.

Currently our industry, and Canada, is bracing for the possibility of both class I railways having labour disruptions as early as next month. Even if a strike is avoided, we are concerned that as the May deadline approaches, there'll be significant impacts on service for weeks or months to come.

We saw a similar situation in March 2022, when one of our class I railways approached the brink of labour action with one of their labour groups. Ultimately, a shutdown was avoided at the eleventh hour, but there were still ramifications for supply chain fluidity from even the threat of labour action. In advance of labour deadlines, the railways began curtailing operations, sending a wave of logistical disruptions and delays back through the supply chain that took weeks to rectify. In November 2019, a class I railway did have labour action that affected operations for a full week, with effects reverberating for months. Given the complexity of this system, it generally takes six to seven days to recover for every one day of service disruption.

I ask you, as parliamentarians on this committee, to consider these labour issues from the lens of our international customers and competitors. Over the last decade, our customers have seen strikes or threats of strikes, both of which disrupt the grain transportation system and affect Canada's ability to reliably supply our customers. This has led to Canada building a reputation as an unreliable supplier and trading partner.

Labour-to-management issues naturally reside between those parties. It is a tenuous balancing act that is enshrined in law and evolving jurisprudence. It is not our intention, as a farm organization, to suggest a solution for these issues but rather to highlight the second- and third-order effects when labour issues do arise. We want to produce more, grow more and expand our exports to drive our economy's growth, and labour is needed to get our products from the farm gate to an export position.

Looking forward, we clearly see further rising demand for our agricultural products, both domestically and internationally. At the end of the day, farmers will not be able to capitalize on the opportunities from increasing demand or trade agreements without a reliable rail and labour system that grain shippers and our global customers have confidence in. Bill C-58 will likely compound the significant issues that our sector is already facing through labour and supply chain uncertainties.

[Ginette Brazeau, Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board]

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to appear before you this morning as part your study of Bill C-58.

I intend to speak about the board and its work, its responsibilities and its structures, and explain the impact that Bill C-58 is likely to have on the board’s operations.

To this end, I provided a reference document entitled “Information Document relating to the Canada Industrial Relations Board”, which I believe was distributed to the committee members.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal that deals with labour relations and employment complaints and requests. We offer mediation to help the parties reach a settlement and, when necessary, we adjudicate disputes between them.

The board consists of a chair, five full-time vice-chairs, and three part-time vice-chairs. There are also six members representing employers and employees in equal numbers. The panels appointed to hear and decide cases are made up of one vice-chair and two members. Members therefore cannot sit alone to decide cases.

The board is responsible for applying and interpreting various statutes, including the Status of the Artist Act, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and, of course, the Canada Labour Code, which in itself comprises four distinct legislative regimes: Part I, which relates to labour relations; Part II, for health and safety matters; Part III, which deals with minimum labour standards; and Part IV, which deals with an administrative monetary penalty regime.

Traditionally, the board was responsible for part I of the code—industrial relations. In 2019, amendments were brought to the code that made the board responsible for all parts of the code. At that time, the code was also amended to allow the chairperson to appoint external adjudicators to help us deal with certain types of cases. You will see from chart 1 in the document that was distributed that since those changes came into force in 2019, the board's caseload has doubled. We went from about 500 cases a year to 1,000 cases a year.

At the time these changes were made in 2019, there was funding identified for the board's new responsibilities. An amount of $3.4 million was approved for this purpose. However, it's important to note that the board does not have its own appropriations and does not have autonomy in the administration and management of all of its affairs. The board's financial and human resources are allocated and managed by the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, the ATSSC.

The ATSSC was created through legislative amendments in 2014. At that time, amendments were also made to remove the chairperson's role as a chief executive officer of the board and her authority to direct and manage the board's resources, budget and other administrative matters. Any funding that is identified or approved for the board is in fact allocated to the ATSSC, which exercises all the financial authorities and in turn determines how best to allocate the funding to the various tribunals it supports.

As it relates to the approved funding in 2019, my observation is that the amount of $3.4 million has not consistently flowed through to the board. Our initial budget allocations over the last five years have not seen an equivalent increase. You will see that in chart 4 in the document.

This unpredictable allocation of funds makes it difficult to plan and address the board's caseload in a stable manner. This past fiscal year, for example, I was unable to assign any new files to external adjudicators for a period of eight months as there were insufficient funds allocated for this purpose. As a result, the board has accrued a significant backlog of cases and is experiencing increased delays in processing cases. You'll see that in chart 2.

The board's ability to respond effectively and in a timely manner to the disputes that come to us requires sufficiency of funds and the ability and flexibility to swiftly align or realign human and financial resources as the board sees fit in order to respond appropriately.

All this is to say that if Bill C-58 passes, it will be challenging for the board, with its existing structure and resources, to deal with complaints of replacement workers on an expedited basis or for the board to address all maintenance of activities matters within 90 days without further impacting other types of cases that come to the board.

I'm aware that the committee will have questions for me regarding the timeline for coming into force. In order to be prepared to meet the quick turnaround times that are required by this bill, there are two areas that will require attention.

The first is the resources. I've asked for additional vice-chairs to be appointed to the board and for additional resources to support the work.

The second area is the need for new rules and regulations to be able to review and deal with these matters within 90 days. That will entail development of the rules, consultations with our stakeholders, drafting and adopting of those new rules, and communication materials to ensure that people who come before the board understand the new process we want to put in place to deal with these matters.

As you can see, this will involve considerable work and several steps.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this subject.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 109 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, although all of the committee members and witnesses are here in the room.

I will go over a couple of comments.

You have the option to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation is available using the headset in front of you. Click on the language you choose to participate in.

I will ask you to keep your earpieces away from the mics, if you use them. Otherwise, they can cause popping that can hurt the interpreters.

Please direct all of your questions through me, the chair. Wait until I recognize you by name before you proceed. To get my attention, please raise your hand.

If there's a breakdown in the interpretation services, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 27, 2024, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations, 2012.

For the first hour, we will have the final group of witnesses who will appear for the review of Bill C-58.

Appearing today in the room is Ginette Brazeau, chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Welcome, madam.

From the Canadian Canola Growers Association, we have Dave Carey, vice-president, government and industry relations.

From the Canadian Telecommunications Association, we have Robert Ghiz, president and chief executive officer, and Eric Smith, senior vice-president.

Before we begin, I do have to acknowledge that Mr. Ghiz's father was responsible for convincing me to enter politics and public life back in 1982.

Welcome, Mr. Ghiz.

Each of you will have five minutes or less to give opening remarks. We'll begin with Madame Brazeau.

Chairperson, please go ahead for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

There's been a motion to adjourn debate on the motion. I'm going to call a vote on the motion to adjourn debate only.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Debate is adjourned on this particular motion.

We are running out of time. Will committee members indulge me for a moment or two for some committee business?

Currently for Thursday, April 18, the committee plans to hear from witnesses on Bill C‑58 for the first hour. For the second hour, we will go into committee business to conclude the consideration of the draft report on artificial intelligence. I hope for the indulgence of the committee to get to the second version as well, so committee members should be prepared to do that. Again, that's so we can create some time in June to get to housing.

Also be prepared, if we get through version 2 of the artificial intelligence report, to look at version 1 of the volunteerism study report. You will have it tomorrow. I would like to begin version 1 of the report on volunteerism in that last hour.

I'm know I'm being very ambitious, but I'm getting some nods from Mr. Aitchison.

I just wanted to give you a note on that. That's what my plans are for the second hour. Also, I'll have to get approval for five budget items to cover the scrumptious lunches we've been having at committee as well as to invite committee members.

With that, thank you for your time. We did conclude the majority of the discussion on Bill C‑58 today, so thank you.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?