Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. O'Regan, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Proulx, welcome.

Previously, we heard from the unions and we had a confidential discussion about my question on their fears regarding this 18-month delay. They told me then that it was too long, that it should be nine months, and that nine months would be enough time to navigate through it all. Their big fear is that it won't be applied until after the next election, with an uncertain outcome, since they're not the ones making the decisions. They fear that, in the end, the bill or its application will be postponed indefinitely.

Why choose 18 months instead of nine?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

We're with 18 months because of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It is the feeling amongst those people who will do the work to reach agreement that feel that they need 18 months for several reasons.

First, the quantity of work is going to increase, so we need to hire more people.

Second, those who are presently there, who do a tremendous job, need to understand and fully absorb the impacts of this. It does change things, obviously for the better in our opinion; otherwise, we wouldn't be doing this.

It will keep people focused at the table. The power dynamics amongst the parties will change. It will change how they negotiate. It will change in a fundamental and a very detailed sense, that frankly, is sometimes hard for me to grasp. That's why we have a federal mediation and conciliation service with a 96% success rate. Their credibility is very high with unions and with employers. When they say they need 18 months, I listen to them. That's why it's before us, 18 months.

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

I get the impression that it's the employers, rather, who are recommending this 18-month period. Sitting down around a table shouldn't be that complicated.

It was also pointed out that subclause 94(5) of the bill proposes to add to the Canada Labour Code what is literally a recipe for telling employers how to go about hiring scabs, as I pointed out in the House during the debate at second reading of the bill. This paragraph tells employers that they must hire subcontractors or employees of subcontractors before filing bargaining documents. It was therefore suggested that this clause be removed, as it would contravene the very spirit of the law.

What should we do with a legal provision that is against the spirit of the law?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I wish I had the time for such conspiracy theories to be actual in fact. I can tell you right now—

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

Forgive me, Minister, but these are not conspiracy theories. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It is the unions, lawyers and law professors who have raised this aspect. I'd ask for a modicum of respect on this point, please.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madame, I resent the insinuation that I am listening to anyone other than the very good people at our federal mediation and conciliation service and the CIRB. Theirs are the opinions that count for me.

If FETCO is asking for 18 months, that's fine. I can tell you that the people I worry about and the people who I have more respect for in the public service than anybody are the people at the table who reach those deals. They say they need 18 months. That, therefore, is my priority. That is 18 months.

Also, may I correct you? The negotiating table is terribly complicated, and when an addition of a ban on replacement workers is introduced to what is already a tremendously complicated process, yes, it is complicated. It does take time. This is hard work. I got to witness it myself on many occasions. Eighteen months is what they say they need; 18 months is, right now, standing before you. That's what I am offering.

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

Minister, thank you, but I think we didn't understand each other.

To me, it's easier to sit around a table and talk, even if it means not getting along, than to leave workers like those at the Port of Quebec in the lurch for 18 months—and counting—watching strikebreakers go by. As you yourself pointed out, this undermines negotiations in the very long term. That's what I was talking about. It's much easier to sit around a table than to let things go.

Now, please, does proposed subclause 94(5) in clause 9 of the bill respect the spirit of the law? We don't think it really does.

[Sandra Hassan]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Vignola.

New subclause 94(5) serves to clarify what a contractor who was hired prior to the notice to bargain can do. It clarifies that this person can only continue to do the work they were doing before negotiations began, and for the same length of time. If this person had been hired to work half a day a week on a given project, they could, after the start of negotiations, only continue to work for half a day a week on the project they were working on before.

This is an additional clarification to subclause 4.

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

Do you see the flaw?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

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 just like to say, by way of introduction, that I'm somewhat taken aback by the comments of my Conservative colleagues today on this committee. They suddenly seem to be very concerned about the fate of the federal public service and public service workers. Yet this is not how I remember Mr. Stephen Harper's regime when the Conservatives were in power.

That said, Minister, thank you very much for appearing before us today.

You said in your introduction that this was a purely Liberal bill. I'd just like to add that there is a bit of NDP in there, since it was a condition of the agreement we negotiated with your minority government.

I must also underscore the fact that we had frank and honest discussions on the development of Bill C‑58. There's obviously room for improvement, and there are things we're going to want to improve and correct along the way. However, you do have experience, Minister, as you've seen labour disputes in federally regulated sectors over the past few years.

By way of introduction, I'd like you to briefly explain the impact of anti-scab legislation at the bargaining table when it comes to respecting the rights of workers in federally regulated sectors.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

First of all, my apologies to the honourable member. I would happily show him my speaking notes later. The word was “liberal”, not “Liberal”. By that I was inferring the spirit of tripartism. He is quite right that this is incredibly important to the NDP. It's very important in our agreement with them. I'm grateful for the sound advice of Mr. Boulerice, who has been extremely active on this, but also Daniel Blaikie, Matthew Green and others in the NDP caucus. It would not be here, and certainly would not have taken the form that it has, without them. I am grateful for the relationship.

I guess I would colour it by an example that I may or may not have given to this committee before. It really was quite striking. It was something that did not make much news, thankfully. That was the WestJet pilot strike that almost occurred before the May long weekend of last year. In their previous agreement, they had been legislated back to work. Their only experience, really, at the negotiating table was being legislated back to work. I was there when they arrived at an agreement themselves.

I can tell you that I was worried about the May long weekend of last year. They were in very hardened positions. We did not think an agreement was possible. Our mediators and conciliators worked with them through days and nights and days and nights, right up until the last minute, which is how these things go, as we all know. When I went over, once they reached an agreement—I've seen a lot of sour relationships, and their relationship I would definitely characterize as sour—they were opening up bottles of champagne. They were happy to be in each other's company. They said to me that they had just never experienced this before.

I think you have to take it from the point of view of those people who negotiate at the table. I think we've all, in our own lives, been there at some point in time, but when you have the weight of your membership or your constituency on you about reaching that deal, when you're feeling that pressure and you arrive at that deal, you all know that you have to go back and sell it to your constituents. But you're in this together. You have arrived at this together.

I talked about how it can be poisoned for generations. It can also be incredibly affirming and supportive. It means you start to trust one another. You have some semblance of trust or at least of professionalism: I appreciate the fact that you need to reach a deal here too. It's good for our industry, it's good for our workers and it's good for the country. Let's take this leap together.

It just cannot be replaced. Collective bargaining cannot be replaced. You cannot reach any sort of stability or certainty or, I would argue, prosperity unless you have that process work.

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

Thank you, Minister.

From our perspective, as New Democrats, the middle class is also a creation of the labour movement. This movement has made it possible, through labour contracts and free bargaining, to improve working conditions, wages and the health and safety of workers in this country. We are extremely proud of this.

To get back to the bill we're looking at, I'd like to mention that some people are concerned about meeting certain deadlines. If there is no agreement between the two parties, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, CIRB, must render a decision within 90 days. Can you assure us that the CIRB will have the financial and human resources needed to make these decisions within the time frames indicated in the bill?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Indeed. I think the member is absolutely right. The CIRB does an exemplary job. They have an incredible reputation. Sometimes the mere mention of their name or the mere insinuation that they may become involved in some way, shape or form can immediately move mountains at a table.

It is incumbent upon us to make sure that if we give them a volume of work, which we would be in the outcome of this, we also make sure that they are equipped to handle that work in resources, which affects the timeline...and also by resources, more than anything, the expertise that they are so admired for.

Again, this comes back to the amount of time that is needed as well; not just resources but also time. We need to make sure that the people who are there, and the new people who we inevitably, I think, will have to hire, have a clear and full understanding of all the implications of this new legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Madam Ferreri, you have five minutes.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I want to start out by asking you if you consider GC Strategies a replacement worker?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I think we're veering into something off-topic.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

It's just a question. Would you consider GC Strategies a replacement worker?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I think that was an answer. I think we're veering off-topic.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Okay, so you have no answer to that.

Earlier, we had testimony from Chris Aylward, the national president of PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I asked him directly what the difference was between a contractor or a consultant and a replacement worker, and he was pretty adamant that they were both awful, with replacement workers being the worst but consultants being a very close second.

I think there has been a significant demoralizing factor that's happened with workers. In particular, we look at what has happened with GC Strategies and arrive scam, which was supposed to cost taxpayers $80,000. The reason I'm bringing this up is that we're here to talk about how we're going to help workers, yet the government, the Liberals, are saying one thing but seem to be doing another.

If outside consultants, which... The Auditor General found that the app didn't work and that nobody wanted it. It cost $60 million, but the government's record was so bad, the AG said it was impossible to determine the real cost of the app. The procurement watchdog found that 76% of subcontractors on ArriveCAN did no actual work, and the two—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Could we get back to the relevance, please? We're talking about Bill C-58.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Ferreri, please keep it to the relevancy of Bill C-58.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I think it's incredibly relevant, as we heard testimony, prior to the minister, from the national president of PSAC, saying that this is deeply connected to replacement workers. If we know that the government is wasting $21 billion on outside consultants, which is costing families $1,400 each, that's significant.

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

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair.

We're just going back to where we started. This is not relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Ferreri, we're here to discuss Bill C-58.

You may continue.