Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2024

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

Good morning, committee members. I call the meeting to order. The clerk has advised that we do have a quorum.

Those appearing virtually have been sound-tested. We still have one minor issue with a witness, but we'll see how it goes.

Welcome to meeting number 105 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. People are attending in person and virtually using Zoom.

You have the option to speak in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation services are available by using the headsets and selecting the language of your choice. If you're appearing virtually, click on the globe icon on the bottom of your Surface, and choose the language of your choice. If there is a breakdown in interpretation services, please get my attention. If you're in the room, raise your hand. If you're appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” function. We will suspend while it is being corrected.

For the protection of our interpreters, I would also like to remind those appearing in the room to please keep earpieces away from the microphones because it does cause popping and can lead to hearing issues for our translators.

Please direct all comments through the chair.

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

Before I recognize the witnesses, I will mention that we have three new members joining us for Bill C-58: Madame Vignola, Mr. Boulerice and Mr. Sheehan.

Welcome to the committee.

On our first panel, we have, from Unifor, Lana Payne, national president; and from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Chris Aylward, national president; Liam McCarthy, director, negotiations and programs branch; and Daniel Fisher, acting director. Appearing virtually, from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, we have Mr. Bolduc, general secretary.

We'll begin with five-minute opening statements. Mr. Aylward will be doing it on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

We'll begin with Unifor and Lana Payne for five minutes, please.

[Lana Payne, National President, Unifor]

Thank you very much.

Honourable members of the committee, I'm here today as president of Unifor, representing 315,000 workers across this country, including almost 70,000 in the federally regulated private sector, such as air, road, rail and marine as well as telecommunications and media.

I want to thank you sincerely for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-58 and the urgent need for anti-scab legislation in Canada. I also want to sincerely thank MPs of all political parties in the House of Commons who unanimously voted in favour of the legislation at second reading. Now we need to get the job done.

Peaceful labour relations in Canada, and indeed all over the world, rely on the principles of fair and free collective bargaining. These principles have improved the living and working conditions for Canadian workers over many decades. No country has achieved shared progress and prosperity for working people without strong unions and strong collective bargaining laws. Our ability to bargain in a framework that truly respects the voice and power of working people has historically been the only way to raise standards for all workers, unionized or not.

Our union bargains a collective agreement practically every day of the week in Canada, as do all other unions. The majority of those negotiations are concluded without a labour dispute. In rare cases of labour disputes, many employers engage respectfully in the process, including by refusing to use scabs. Of course, both sides engage in hard bargaining. That is, after all, part of the process. But still we have employers who refuse to respect the rights of workers in Canada and who behave as if workers do not have constitutional rights. This is what brings me to the important need for Bill C-58 to be adopted as law as quickly as possible.

I have a current example to raise with you involving an employer who mostly operates in the federal jurisdiction, but this case involves a small group of workers under a provincial certification. On February 27, the first day of a perfectly legal strike, Autoport, a subsidiary of the very profitable CN Rail, brought replacement workers across the picket line, aggressively undermining the fundamental right to strike of 239 Unifor members in Nova Scotia. The scabs are still doing the jobs of our members today, including 71-year-old Heather Wildsmith, who has worked at Autoport since 2015. She is a mom and a grandmother with five beautiful grandchildren. She works hard every single day and takes great pride in her work.

While at the bargaining table with us and a federal conciliator, CN was hiring and training scabs to do our members' jobs. This is not fair and free collective bargaining.

CN is also a member of FETCO, which has vocally and actively lobbied against not just this legislation but also workers' right to strike in Canada. Suffice it to say that their recommendations, which you will likely hear, would render this legislation, and indeed collective bargaining rights for workers, completely meaningless.

Here I want to be very clear: The path proposed by FETCO leads to chaos, make no mistake about that. It will force working people and their unions to resort to more direct methods to enforce our collective rights, causing major challenges for employers, labour peace, workers and governments alike. It will not lead to the labour peace that they suggest it will. Indeed, it will lead to the exact opposite.

Legislation to ban replacement workers is needed because the use, and the threat of the use, of scab labour during disputes undermines workers' constitutionally protected right to collectively bargain; undermines our constitutional right to strike; prolongs labour disputes six times longer when replacement workers are used; removes the economic pressure that workers have in negotiating with employers; increases conflict and violence on picket lines; jeopardizes workplace safety; destabilizes normalized labour relations; and creates, I would add, poisonous and toxic workplaces after the fact.

It also removes incentives for employers to negotiate and settle fair contracts where they should be settled—at a bargaining table. Voting for Bill C-58 is, in Unifor's opinion, the very least that elected officials can do.

I thank you again for the full support you gave this legislation at second reading. It modernizes Canada's labour relations system to reflect the current social and economic context of our times, where increased corporate power and wealth require an effective counter-balance.

Quebec and British Columbia, as you know, have similar laws, and have had them for many years. Manitoba has just announced that it will be doing so as well.

Bill C-58 must pass and be implemented without delay—not 18 months from now, and not a year from now.

Thank you very much for hearing from me today. I'll be very happy to take any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Payne.

Mr. Aylward, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Chris Aylward, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is one of the largest unions in the country, representing over 260,000 workers. Of these members, several thousand work in the federally regulated private sector and will be directly impacted by BillC-58. These members work at airports, military bases, for courier companies, at ports, harbours, for indigenous governance organizations, and in the three territories.

For example, I've just returned from British Columbia, where our members, who work for IMP Aerospace repairing search and rescue helicopters, and who are governed under the Canada Labour Code, are currently at the bargaining table.

Progressive and effective legislation to ban replacement workers has been a long-standing demand of trade unions across the country. PSAC was pleased to see the introduction of BillC-58. It's almost there.

We are proposing four simple changes that will make this legislation truly effective in levelling the playing field and ensuring free and collective bargaining for all workers governed in the sector.

First, the use of replacement workers drags out labour disputes and divides communities, pitting workers against each other. PSAC members experienced this recently during the Iqaluit Housing Authority strike. Workers were on the picket line for over four months, while their employer brought in replacement workers to do their jobs, instead of sitting down and negotiating with them at the bargaining table.

This playing field is only levelled if the prohibition on the use of scab labour is complete. Bill C-58, as currently written, leaves many avenues open for employers to bring in others to do the work of striking employees, which is not in keeping with the goals of the legislation. We recommend that the bill be amended to increase the scope of prohibitions on performing struck work.

Second, as written, the legislative changes don't come into effect until well past the next election. This is unacceptable, and it should be possible to bring the maintenance of activities proposals into effect within 90 days of royal assent, and no longer than nine months for the anti-scab provisions.

Third, the language in the bill around the use of dependent contractors is confusing. The legislation must explicitly specify that dependent contractors, who are employees of the bargaining unit, cannot perform struck work.

Finally, the time frame for decision-making regarding essential services is too long. The Supreme Court has clarified that essential services should not hinder or delay a worker's right to strike. The proposed 90-day time limit for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to conduct hearings and render decisions in the event of a dispute between unions and employers over essential services is simply too long.

These are our four proposed changes. Remove the exemptions on who can perform struck work. Shorten the time frame until the act comes into force. Specify that dependent contractors cannot perform struck work. Reduce the time for decision-making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board for essential services agreements.

This will make the Canada Labour Code a robust, fair and future-proof piece of legislation that will bring balance to the workplace.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn't comment that the Canada Labour Code only regulates the working conditions of about a million workers in this country. It is imperative that anti-scab laws be implemented across the entire country. While this body doesn't have the power to make such rules for the provinces, you do have the power—and I do ask you to use it—to amend the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act, and to ensure that scab labour is not used to subvert bargaining for the 400,000-plus workers employed by the government and its Crown corporations and agencies.

In fact, when I leave this room, I'll be heading directly to a picket line for the staff of our non-public funds. These workers provide critical supports to Canada's armed forces. They've been on strike for more than two months, because their employer—an agency of the federal government—has refused to return to the bargaining table with a wage offer that shows these workers respect and, instead, is spending funds hiring replacement workers to do their jobs. It is a glaring example of why this legislation is needed, and why it needs to be expanded.

Thank you for your time. I'll look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Aylward.

Mr. Bolduc, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Denis Bolduc, General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and hon. committee members.

Thank you for giving the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the FTQ, the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑58. The FTQ represents 600,000 workers in Quebec across all sectors, including some federally regulated businesses. We have members who work in ports, telecommunications, cable, airports and rail, among others. Currently, we have two groups that are locked out in federally regulated businesses: Videotron employees in Gatineau, very close to here, and the longshoremen at the Port of Quebec, who have been locked out for 18 months.

The FTQ applauds the current government's decision to introduce a bill to prohibit the use of scabs in the event of a dispute, be it a lockout or a strike. For years, and I would even say a few decades, the central labour body has been calling for this kind of legislation. I would also say that it's one thing to introduce a bill, but it's another thing to get it passed. However, we must pass this bill very quickly, because we've been waiting for it for a long time. It must be passed during the current Parliament, and to that end, the FTQ is asking all parliamentarians from all political parties in the House of Commons to lend a hand.

Bill C‑58 has been a long time coming for the FTQ. It will improve the collective bargaining process, because scabs are being used far too often. They undermine the settlement of collective agreements by prolonging disputes. That's a proven fact. Bill C‑58 restrikes a certain balance of power between workers and employers. I'd say that the bill gives real meaning to the fundamental right of association and strike, which is recognized and has been recognized in recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

Yes, we at the FTQ are happy. In December 2022, we submitted a brief as part of the consultation conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada. In it, we addressed our general requests for the introduction of a bill. Now that the bill is being studied, it's most important that Parliament be able to pass it quickly. In that regard, I will propose the amendments that are most important to us.

First, the bill seeks to protect workers in federally regulated industries from the use of scabs during a strike or lockout. We find it hard to understand why employees of the federal public service and employees of Parliament are excluded from the bill in its current form. They should be protected like all other workers. It may have been an oversight or a mistake, but it can easily be corrected.

Second, we're concerned about the proposed new clause 94(5) of the Canada Labour Code. Reading that paragraph, we could conclude that just before starting negotiations, an employer can call on subcontractors and that the employees of that subcontractor can perform the duties of workers who are locked out or on strike, or perform similar tasks. It makes no sense to us. In the text of the bill, it would be a bit like giving an employer planning a lockout a recipe for using scabs without them being considered scabs within the meaning of the act. This clause is of great concern to us. We believe it should simply be removed from the bill.

Third, with respect to the act coming into force, there is an 18-month period between the day it receives royal assent and its effective date. We believe that the new act should come into force as soon as it receives royal assent, since it doesn't require the implementation of a complex organizational structure and, in our view, there's no reason for an 18-month delay.

I'm available to answer your questions.

Thank you again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Bolduc.

We will begin with Mrs. Gray for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.

My first questions are for Mr. Aylward, please. Thank you for being here and for your comments today.

I want to ask you about replacement workers. We've seen them in a number of different forms in a large number of sectors.

Mr. Aylward, a member of your board of directors, Mark Weber, who is the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, recently appeared at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. He said, “we believe the goal of the app is to replace officers.”

Do you agree with Mr. Weber that the goal of the $60-million ArriveCAN app was designed to replace officers?

[Chris Aylward]

I can't comment on that. I don't know. Mr. Weber is certainly in a better position than I am to respond to that.

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

Thank you.

Have you heard from workers about their concerns that outsourced contractors and consultants may be utilized to replace them? Is that something you hear from your workers?

[Chris Aylward]

Yes, that is a major concern within our membership.

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

What kind of comments do they bring forth with you on that specifically? Would you please elaborate?

[Chris Aylward]

For example, the folks I'm going to see right after this meeting who are on strike are non-public funds employees. They work for an agency; they're not part of the federal public service.

The members whom I talked about out in Comox in British Columbia work for IMP Aerospace. Why don't they work for the Government of Canada? Why are they under the thumb of a contractor? They're federal public sector workers. The work needs to be done within the federal public sector, obviously, repairing military aircraft, especially search and rescue helicopters. Why are they under IMP? Why are they not under the Department of National Defence? They work for a contractor. They should be federal public sector workers.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Weber from your board of directors also said at that meeting:

Once the ArriveCAN app came in, members brought concerns forward to the union, which we tried to bring to the employer. Really, there seemed to be no willingness to take our input. Had our members been consulted early on, I think a great deal of what happened would not have happened.

Do you agree with Mr. Weber that the government could have avoided wasting the $60 million in taxpayer dollars outsourcing contractors and consultants and replacing government workers had it consulted internally with CBSA workers or their IT workers?

[Chris Aylward]

Absolutely, 100%. Any time the government moves forward with a project and they don't consult the unions, it usually turns into chaos, a disaster.

It's just like the Phoenix pay system. All kinds of promises were made about the savings of the Phoenix pay system. The Phoenix pay system now is costing Canadian taxpayers $3 billion and growing. The Phoenix pay system is still not fixed.

Little consultation means disaster. Any time you don't consult when union members are involved in that project, it's going to be a disaster, just like ArriveCAN and the Phoenix pay system.

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

Thank you for that.

There's another major government IT project under way. It's the largest IT project in Canadian history. It's the benefits delivery modernization program. We know right now that it is massively over budget and delayed. We know that there are a lot of outsourced contractors and consultants also being used for that. Would that be a concern of yours?

[Chris Aylward]

Again, any time you go outside and do any kind of contracting out and you're not consulting with the people performing the duties, then it's going to be a disaster. Studies have shown time after time that contracting out public sector work costs more money, doesn't come in on time and is done more poorly. That's what we advocate for. Keep it in-house. Why are we doing all of this contracting out?

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

Would you feel that a number of government workers might be feeling undervalued when there seems to be no willingness by the government to take their input or utilize their skills? Do you think that it's demotivating and that they're feeling undervalued?

[Chris Aylward]

I think anybody would feel demoted or devalued. If I'm sitting here, and it's my job to do these duties, and somebody else has been hired from outside as an external contractor to oversee these duties or do the same duties, that can be very demoralizing. There's no doubt about that.

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

Thank you for that.

On that note, we've heard through Stats Canada reports as recently as 2023 that over 4.1 million people indicated they're experiencing high or very high levels of work-related stress, representing 21.2% of all employed people. Do you think the workers you represent may be having work-related stress from feeling replaced and unappreciated by the government spending billions on outsourced contractors and consultants?

[Chris Aylward]

Any time any government contracts out, the anxiety level rises within the employees, and understandably so. It's always, “Am I next?” Yes, any time a government contracts out public service work, the anxiety level definitely increases. There's no doubt about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gray.

We'll go to Mr. Collins for six minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to all of our witnesses here today for this very important issue.

Coming from the city of Hamilton, I've had the honour and the privilege of working with unions for my entire adult life as an elected representative. I'm very well aware of the importance of legislation that protects workers' rights. This one certainly falls into that category.

Ms. Payne, you touched on this in your opening, but five minutes doesn't give you a lot of time to really get into the weeds on it. Can you talk about how the use of replacement workers undermines bargaining rights?

[Lana Payne]

Absolutely. Thank you very much for that.

Between 2011 and 2022 in the federal jurisdiction, in terms of the number of labour disputes we had during that period, 40% of the time employers used scabs. When they do that, they feel they don't have to sit down and work out a collective agreement at the bargaining table. This circumvents and prevents them from really doing what needs to be done, which is respecting the workers and bargaining with the workers who have a union in that workplace.

Right now, the case of the CN dispute at Autoport is a perfect example. These workers, by the way, off-load luxury vehicles. This is not exactly something in the national interest that someone gets their Lamborghini very quickly. This is exactly what they do. These are very expensive vehicles, whether it's Porsches or whatever the case may be, and this employer, instead of sitting down and bargaining a fair collective agreement with our members—which, by the way, is also an indication of respect for those workers—chose, on the first day of the dispute, to bring replacement workers in to do that job.

This is going to prolong this dispute. We've already been on a picket line for a month there now. It is demoralizing for workers when they have to experience that. It gives them a sense that the rules don't work for them: I've given up my paycheque to try to put economic pressure on this employer, and they get to counteract by replacing me with people to do my work. Until that is removed, we're not going to have what I would call fully fair and free collective bargaining in this country.

Of course, we have many employers who would never do that. We deal with them every day of the week. We just had auto negotiations, as you all know, last year. We were able to bargain historic collective agreements for our members. That is having a ripple impact on how we lift up other workers throughout this sector, including non-union workers, those at Toyota and Honda who got pay raises because of the work we did at a bargaining table. We had short strikes during that. Not once would those employers consider bringing scabs across the picket line.

So we have some employers who play by the rules, and then these over here who do not.

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

I'm sure you're well aware of that bogeyman argument out there that says prolonged strikes lead to higher prices and all kinds of economic disruption in the economy. Can you comment on that in terms of allowing for the process that you just talked about, and how important that is in terms of respecting workers' rights, and also speak to the issue of those who would say that prolonged strikes lead to disruption in the economy and higher prices?