Human Resources Committee on April 8th, 2024

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Here we are discussing very important, arguably historic, legislation that is before this committee, legislation that shows what's possible when parties collaborate towards a common goal, and that is to support workers across this country. If anything needed to be exposed about the Conservative discourse recently, that whole messaging around workers and how they're “the party of workers”—they say—has been exposed today. Why put this motion forward when we're discussing such an important issue at the committee with respect to the legislation?

Regardless, housing is a critical issue. We're glad to take up the motion that's been introduced here. What I would propose is the following amendment, and that's been circulated to the clerk already.

The first paragraph would be dropped. It would begin, “According to a recent report”, and so on and so forth, ending at the word “levels”. It would continue with “The average Canadian family must now pay 63.5% of their pre-tax household income in order to afford mortgage payments on a typical home in Canada.” That would conclude the second paragraph.

Then finally, “Therefore the Committee invite the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and RBC Assistant Chief Economist Robert Hogue to testify before the committee on the study of homelessness and affordable housing adopted on February 12, 2024.”

I'll remind you, Mr. Chair and colleagues, that this particular motion opened the door to a housing study that will be taking place at the beginning of June, if my memory serves. I think we agreed to it at the subcommittee on an existing agenda. These issues are important, but so are the other issues that are before the committee.

I think we're acting in good faith here to have the witnesses the Conservatives want to come before committee at the appropriate time, when we take up the housing study. It will be an important housing study—and I look forward to it very much—to explore the various ideas that each of the parties has on housing and to see how this committee can make a constructive contribution towards the entire issue of housing in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

An amendment to the motion has been moved. The clerk will take a minute or so to have it circulated, but the amendment is in order.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Let's go to a vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have two more, and they will be speaking to the amendment. In order for it to be fair, everybody needs to have the amendment. As soon as the clerk advises me, Mrs. Gray and Ms. Ferreri will speak on the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos, which is in order. Then it's Mr. Boulerice.

I'll remind the witnesses that this is a procedure within committee. We had a motion that was introduced and must be dealt with.

[Inaudible—Editor] must only occur on the amendment that has been moved.

Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Ariane Calvert]

Members, I just sent the Word document by email. Inside the Word document, I indicated, in track changes, what Mr. Fragiskatos's amendment is.

If you accept the tracked change, it will be the motion including his amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Gray, go ahead on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned a brief suspension. I think that would be appropriate, because we literally just got it. I'd like to read it. There are quite a lot of changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will suspend for two minutes. This still allows us to get back before the end of our first hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Members, the committee will resume.

I understand there may be a minor difference in the translation, which Mr. Boulerice will speak about.

However, I'm going to return to Mrs. Gray and Ms. Ferreri. Then it's Mr. Boulerice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be very brief so we can move on, here.

The Liberals have basically gutted the entire motion. What they've said is that we will deal with this when we're working on the greater study, which doesn't happen until June. Here they're saying that we're not going to talk about housing until June, yet there are all of these new numbers coming out that are reiterating what kind of housing crisis we're having. For that, they've removed everything being requested.

I can't support it based on what they've done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Ms. Ferreri, go ahead on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll speak to the motion that was put forward to study housing and the amendment that was put forward by the Liberal member.

To his point, we do have witnesses here and we are studying a very important bill. These witnesses, who represent the majority of workers across Canada, have told us very strongly today that housing is the biggest issue for a lot of these workers.

You can't move and you can't rent if you don't have a job. You can't get a job if you don't have a house. We know that these stats are staggering. In particular, according to an RBC report, it was the “toughest time ever to afford a home” in Canada, based on ownership costs as a proportion of median household income.

The motion put forward by my colleague was to study this and report the matter to the House of Commons so that we can get to the bottom of this.

The average Canadian family must now pay 63.5% of its total pre-tax household income. The amendment put forward has removed the piece to report this to the House of Commons, which is where it would be debated and where you would actually get policy and legislation in place.

There's nothing here, so I can't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Mr. Boulerice, you may speak about the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I'll be supporting the amendment moved by the government representatives. The original version of the motion is really a stalling tactic to delay the discussion on the anti‑scab bill and the adoption of the bill. The committee has already scheduled a study on the important issue of housing for June. That seems reasonable. We must also take into account the comments made by the witnesses here today and at the previous meeting. They said that we must work diligently. However, given the proposed dates, the Conservative motion would delay the study of Bill C‑58, which we in the NDP consider unacceptable.

However, I would like to move a subamendment. The Liberal amendment before us contains a discrepancy between the English and French versions. In the French version, the Governor of the Bank of Canada is invited, but in the English version, he simply isn't mentioned. I would like to move a subamendment to make sure that the two versions match and that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is invited.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Is there any discussion on this subamendment from Mr. Boulerice?

I'm going to call a vote on this subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

For the benefit of the witnesses, I'm going to conclude the second round, which will be five minutes each for Mr. Collins, Madam Chabot and Mr. Boulerice. That will carry us into committee business.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Aitchison still had time because he moved a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have gone through this before. When you call a motion in your time, the clock runs until it expires. If you conclude it before that, we go back to him. He had two and a half minutes left in his five-minute time when he called the motion, and we've used about 15 minutes on that, so we've already reviewed that, and I made my decision on that.

Mr. Collins for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bruske, I come from Hamilton. Some legendary conflicts have occurred there in the past involving United Steelworkers and the use of replacement workers, scab workers, back in the 1940s. Books have been written about that and their fight for a 40-hour work week. Stelco used replacement workers, and—I think to your point in terms of decades later now—people still remember those stories and that fight. It created a very adversarial relationship. Even after the 80-day strike was over, the conflict and the relationship between the employer, the employees and the union was soured for decades.

Can you talk about the impact that using scab workers has on the workplace after conflicts are settled, whether they're short-, medium- or long-term disruptions?

[Bea Bruske]

Absolutely.

Walking into a workplace when there's been a labour dispute, when you've had to walk a picket line, especially when scabs have been utilized and have literally taken food out of your children's mouths, is not something that workers forget or that they will ever get beyond. The situation and the atmosphere within a workplace become extremely challenging. There is ongoing distrust and ongoing animosity, and all of that make every round of bargaining thereafter that much more difficult.

In order to actually reach a good collective agreement, there has to be a bit of a relationship of trust. That doesn't mean you have to agree with each other but you have to be able to be in the same room to explore what the issues are and to really understand where the other party is coming from and what issues you're seeking to find a solution to.

The best opportunity you have is to actually have that relationship of trust to be able to deal with difficult issues. In order to actually put forward what the issue at hand is, workers need to feel that they have dignity in the conversations.

When there is the kind of dispute in which you are basically discarded and disposable, you're not going to feel any kind of empathy towards that employer, and you're not going to have that trust that you can actually express what the concerns are.

These are decades-long situations in which rebuilding has to take place, and there often needs to be a change in management in order to actually rebuild that kind of relationship.

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

Thank you for that answer.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has sent correspondence to the committee about the impacts the legislation will have on the daily lives of Canadians if in fact it's passed. It talked about disruption in telecommunications services and our ability to travel when there may be a strike or a lockout. It also talked about the impact on the economy and about how maybe there will be some hesitancy in terms of investors looking at Canada as a place to invest.

Can you talk about those comments and about whether or not you see them as valid?

[Bea Bruske]

I think there's a little bit of fearmongering in those comments. At the end of the day, what we want is for employers to come to the table with a clear view of reaching a collective agreement. Ninety-five per cent of collective agreements are signed without a labour dispute, without any kind of a disruption, without any kind of stoppage. In those cases where there is a dispute or there is a stoppage, there's a small number in which scabs are actually in use.

What we are trying to deal with here is those egregious examples in which employers have zero intent of actually reaching a collective agreement. What I'm most concerned about is the economic reality for those workers who are having to walk that picket line.

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

When the legislation passes, there will be provinces that look at this and they will undertake studies in the future at committees just like the one we're sitting in today, and they'll talk about British Columbia and Quebec and the impact the legislation has had there. We'll implement this and we'll see the benefits and gains that will accrue to unions and their members. How will this help other provinces and territories that may look at this legislation in the future and say, “You know what? We should be going down the same path provincially, in our respective province.”

[Bea Bruske]

I think this legislation simply modernizes labour relations in Canada, and it's beyond time for us to actually be getting to this particular piece of legislation. This is something we should have had for many decades.

We see that with this legislation the sun still rises in Quebec and still rises in B.C., so this is not egregious. This is actually resetting the balance at the bargaining table to help the parties get to a fair collective agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bruske, it was also pointed out that this bill excludes public service employees.

Should the current version of the bill apply to federal public service employees?