Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Lana Payne]

Thank you. It's a great question.

As you're probably aware, currently under the legislation, there are provisions for maintenance of service agreements. We participate in these all of the time. The way that they work is that we come together with the employer, with the support of the federal conciliation officers and departments, to make sure that we have come to an agreement on essential services that must be carried on in the event of a labour dispute.

That will continue. It's important to do that. While you hear that workers don't care about things, that they just want to go on strike, they actually want to make sure that these workplaces are safe during those periods.

By the way, we engage in what I would call our maintenance of service agreements in every jurisdiction in the country, even when the law doesn't require them to do that. We often do it if we're in negotiations in the forestry sector, where we have to make sure that critical pieces of that business carry on during the dispute. It's in our interest, of course, to do that because a complete shutdown can often mean that it takes many months for these businesses to get back up and running. It's in no one's interest for that to occur.

We work these things out ahead of time to make sure those critical pieces can carry on, even in the event of a labour dispute.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Aylward, do you have any additional thoughts?

[Chris Aylward]

Certainly. Again, we also enter into maintenance of activities agreements, which are basically essential services agreements. I do know that there's some concern about the supply chain and the flow of goods. That's not a concern, because we have these maintenance agreements, these essential services agreements.

I agree with Lana that we're working on those all year-round with employers. We're not just saying, “Okay, we're going on strike. We have to get in the essential services agreement now.” We do that all the time.

When we had our federal public strike last spring, we had members who should have been deemed essential on military bases. On one base in particular, it was the heating plant operator who was not deemed essential. The heating plant was not functional on that particular military base. They called and asked what they were going to do. We didn't say, “No, too bad.” We said, “Of course. There's a health and safety concern here. We'll go in for now. We'll get the plant up and running. Next time, make sure you deem this person essential.”

We work with employers all the time, because we understand as well that there are health and safety concerns, and there are national security concerns. With anything like that, we're always working with the employers.

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

I'd like to stay with the public safety or health and safety concerns you've raised.

It would seem to me that replacement workers would be new in their role and that there would be a higher risk of industrial accidents. Are there any statistics that you could provide us that would talk about the higher risk with replacement workers?

[Chris Aylward]

I don't have a number at my fingertips to give you, but you're absolutely right. When you bring in a replacement worker, are you doing your due diligence to make sure that the person has the qualifications to do the duties being requested? That may be the operation of heavy equipment, so you are not only putting yourself in danger; you're putting other people in danger.

I could talk about the Iqaluit housing authority strike that we had up in Iqaluit just this past winter. Our members were out, as I said, on the picket line for four months. The employer was bringing in replacement workers from down south. They were not checking credentials. They were going around to the housing units in Iqaluit doing plumbing work and electrical work. Were those replacement workers qualified to do that work? We don't know. We asked, but we were never given an answer.

Yes, any time you bring in a replacement worker, there is always risk of a health and safety issue.

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

May I have your thoughts as well, Ms. Payne?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Please give a short answer, Ms. Payne.

[Lana Payne]

Absolutely. There is a huge health and safety risk. We've known places that have experienced it. There's no doubt in my mind that the regular workforce, our members, would have an intimate knowledge of that workplace, the equipment and how to maintain it, and how to do all of that work. You can't replace that knowledge overnight with replacement workers.

As a result—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Excuse me, Ms. Payne.

[Lana Payne]

—you will end up with health and safety issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Vignola, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

I will continue with the issue of occupational health and safety hazards.

The Port of Quebec, which is in my riding, has been in a dispute for 18 months. Longshoremen transport equipment and products from ship to shore or from one ship to another. For the past 18 months, untrained and unskilled people have been doing this work. One of the transshipments is nickel. When released into the air, nickel causes respiratory problems. Ammonium nitrate is also shipped through that port.

Mr. Bolduc, what do your employees or your union members at the Port of Quebec fear when they see scabs going by?

[Denis Bolduc]

They're afraid of accidents. As you said, a port is a place that receives potentially dangerous products.

The residents of your riding, Mrs. Vignola, are concerned about the presence of dust released by some of the products you mentioned. The public is more or less aware that this dispute, which has been going on for 18 months, involves unskilled workers doing the work of the locked-out longshore workers. The health and safety issue does come into play, since these products can endanger the surrounding population.

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

As you've just said, the lockout is therefore clearly endangering the health and even the lives of the population, but also those of the longshore workers and subcontractors.

Thank you very much.

[Denis Bolduc]

It is possible, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Finally, I will yield the floor to Mr. Boulerice for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Two and a half minutes isn't long. So I'll try to be brief.

Mr. Aylward, you told us about the labour dispute currently affecting your members at the Staff of the Non-Public Funds, in this case employees who work on National Defence military bases. I've been on the picket line twice to support these workers and show solidarity. These workers are mainly women, demanding somewhat fairer wages and conditions.

However, we have heard that currently, they're being replaced by members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are doing their work. What do you think about the fact that the government is introducing anti-scab legislation, but your own members are currently being replaced while in a labour dispute? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

[Chris Aylward]

Thank you for the question.

Absolutely, yes.

The non-public funds is an agency within the Department of National Defence. We have members who work, technically, for National Defence. They work with the Canadian Forces morale and family services, and they provide support work for military members.

Now we have members of the military doing their struck work at military bases, and of course, CAF members, Canadian Armed Forces members, cannot disobey a direct order. We have members of the Canadian forces doing our members' work, who are currently out on strike. As you said, Mr. Boulerice, it's predominantly women in that particular bargaining unit. They provide support to the families of the military, and now we have the military performing their duties.

I would think that it's a slight contradiction. I would agree with that, yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Payne, you recently demonstrated with unionized employees at Bell Canada in Ottawa. I'd like you to tell us how anti-scab legislation could benefit the rights of your members, particularly in the rail and telecommunications sectors, which are sometimes hard hit by the use of replacement workers.

[Lana Payne]

I know I have to answer this quickly, so I will. Obviously last year when we were in bargaining with Bell Canada.... By the way, we're in bargaining with Bell Canada all the time. In the telecommunications sector, we represent 20,000 workers in media and telecommunications, most of them employed at Bell.

Bell Canada actually sent a memo to every one of their employees suggesting, as we were getting close to trying to get a fair collective agreement and the clock was ticking out with conciliators, that all of them would cross their own picket line and that Bell would welcome their doing that.

This is what we deal with every day with these major corporations. All we're asking for is that there's fairness in bargaining, and this legislation will help us get there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

That concludes the first hour of witness testimony on Bill C-58.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

We'll suspend for two minutes while we change over. The minister is up next.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, committee. We'll resume the second hour this morning by welcoming Minister O'Regan to the committee to speak to Bill C-58.

Mr. Minister, you have with you Sandra Hassan, deputy minister, and Zia Proulx.

Mr. O'Regan, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The labour movement has been telling us for years that replacement workers are bad, a distraction, and prolong labour disputes. We've listened, and now we're going to ban replacement workers.

I have spent a lot of time around the bargaining table over the last couple of years. It is hard work. It gets tense at times. It can be downright messy—and it works. It works. The federal mediation and conciliation service has resolved 96% of labour disputes within the last year. Four per cent of the time, I'm often seen in the media repeating the same message I always do, which is do the work and focus on the table, where the best deals are made—fair, lasting deals that benefit both the employers and the workers.

Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said it very well:

Collective bargaining is problem-solving. Companies that have to participate in that usually have a better outcome, because they’ve had to think through things with labour at the table. And you take two groups that, you know, want dramatically different things, but in collective bargaining, they have to come together and there has to be problem-solving. And if we had that kind of thinking more...think about how different our politics would be.

Replacement workers distract from all of that. They prolong disputes and they poison labour relations for years after. With Bill C-58, we will ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces during a strike or a lockout. That means no new contractors and no members of the bargaining unit crossing the picket line. The penalty for violating the ban will be up to $100,000 a day.

Of course, employers could use replacement workers if the health or safety of people or the protection of property or the environment were ever at risk. Bill C-58 is about stability, long-term stability, with strong labour relations that are forged through free and fair collective bargaining—free “and” fair. Right now, one side of the bargaining table is carrying a lot of the risk. You go too far in a negotiation and they lose. Their labour, their bargaining power—that can be replaced. With Bill C-58, both the union and the employer carry the risk. Both are motivated to stay at the table. That is what we want.

Look at the Port of Quebec, where workers have been locked out for 18 months. That's 18 months. Replacement workers have been brought in to do their job for 18 months. What kind of long-term solution is that? What kind of toxic relationship will that employer and that union have to repair for years to come? Collective bargaining is hard work, but right now, one side has a way out. As we say, the best way to settle disputes is at the negotiating table. I am not a believer in shortcuts.

Now, I have been asked what separates this bill from previous private members' bills. Let me just say that it is a liberal bill in the truest sense of the word. It is developed through tripartism to make sure we get the balance right.

We have something called the “maintenance of activities process”. That is an agreement for how employers and unions agree on what work will continue during a strike or lockout. It's a truce. It's a truce that remains intact even in the midst of a dispute. Right now that isn't required, and the system can be gamed.

Both employers and workers asked for improvements to this process during our consultations last year. When Bill C-58 passes, the employer and the union will be required by law to get together and determine what work needs to continue during a strike or a lockout, if any. We are setting clear timelines on this of 15 days for the parties to come to an agreement. If they cannot come to an agreement, the matter will be referred to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to resolve within 90 days. This is something that both unions and employers asked for. It means more certainty and more predictability in collective bargaining.

We believe in a free and fair collective bargaining process. We believe stability and certainty in our supply chains and services are essential. We believe these are not mutually exclusive concerns. They reinforce each other. This is important. Canada is a reliable trading partner to the world, but that credibility depends on the sustainable operation of our supply chains. It depends on strong, productive labour relations, and on parties staying at the table and reaching a deal.

Thank you. I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll begin with the first round of six minutes with Ms. Gray for six minutes please.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here today.

We heard testimony earlier today about concerns of replacing workers with outside consultants and contractors.

This is my first question for you today, Minister. I have a number here from the public accounts for Employment and Social Development Canada, 2022-23, which shows that $601,511,775 was spent on outside consultants and contractors.

How much of that was spent on outside consultants and contractors at your department of labour and seniors?