Human Resources Committee on April 8th, 2024

[Ryan Greer]

First, I would agree, and I think everyone at this table would agree. Absolutely, the best deals are reached at the bargaining table.

The challenge with negotiations such as that one.... I have no inside knowledge or information of that one, but I certainly heard conflicting accounts about the positions of both the employers' association and the longshoremen. That strike should serve as a warning to us all about how we make decisions that impact the balance in Canada's collective bargaining system.

We did a survey of our members during the strike and found that it was costing manufacturers an average of $207,000 a day. I know we heard all of the figures around $10 billion to $11 billion of trade being disrupted, but it was impacting our members to the tune of an average of $200,000 a day.

All of our members share an interest in resolving these disputes as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Sheehan.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Ms. Bruske and Mr. Greer for being here to discuss this important bill.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a union leader. As we all know, Quebec has had anti‑scab legislation since 1977. It's now 2024, and time for Canada to follow suit. The Bloc Québécois has already tabled 11 bills on the issue.

I particularly want to applaud the workers and union members who have been fighting for decades for equity of treatment. In Quebec, people who work for a provincially regulated organization have access to this type of legislation. However, people who work for a federally regulated organization fall under a different system.

There's a clear example of this situation in Quebec. The dockworkers at the port of Quebec have been locked out for 18 months. There are replacement workers and no one seems to care. The workers are quite concerned. This undermines morale and labour relations, and poses health and safety issues.

When Mr. Bolduc appeared before the committee for the FTQ—one of your major affiliates, Ms. Bruske—he basically repeated what you and I have been saying. There's a difference between introducing a bill and passing it.

In your opinion, how can we speed up the process to get this bill passed?

Would you suggest any amendments to certain clauses of the bill? For example, you talked about the implementation period after royal assent. Can you elaborate on this?

[Bea Bruske]

Yes, we urge a very quick adoption of this bill. This is something that labour has been fighting for—literally for decades—and as you pointed out, it exists in Quebec, it exists currently in British Columbia, it is being tabled in Manitoba and it was even tabled in Nova Scotia. We think that this is absolutely an issue of equity, of fairness and of getting to the bargaining table with the view to getting a deal done, versus one party, also at the same time, planning to utilize scabs to keep the workplace going instead of participating, in a fair way, at the bargaining table to actually get to a deal.

First and foremost, a quicker implementation period is what we are after. We believe that the Canada Industrial Relations Board is well-suited to implement the aspects of this bill in a much quicker way, and so we suggest that a shorter timeline, rather than 18 months, is what we're looking for.

We also believe that a scab is a scab is a scab. It doesn't matter what your title is: Whether you're a contractor, you're working at another workplace location or you're a management person, if you are performing struck work, you are doing the work of somebody who's walking a picket line. There should be a full ban on any type of labour for the workers who are out on strike, barring, of course, the essential services that the parties have agreed to so as to ensure that neither life nor limb is going to be harmed, or that there are no health and safety issues, those types of things. Those are the two key items that we want to table.

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

Would you suggest any amendments other than the amendment regarding the 18‑month implementation period after royal assent? Do any specific clauses of the bill stand out?

Some union representatives have told us here about troublesome clauses. These clauses would enable an employer that wants to lock out workers to check for available subcontractors before giving notice to bargain. As a result, the employer could indirectly accomplish what it couldn't directly accomplish.

Have you referred these types of situations to the government so that proposed amendments can be considered?

[Bea Bruske]

Yes. Under subclause 9(5), contract workers hired just before a strike should also be considered scabs because, yes, the employer has the ability to hire prior to a labour dispute, a lockout or a strike starting.

Also, under subclause 6(1), the essential services provision, the parties have 15 days to come to an agreement, and after that the CIRB has 90 days to render a decision if there is no agreement reached. We think that's a very long period of time, especially if the parties are—hopefully—in bargaining during that time, that a 45-day window is a much more reasonable period of time to render a decision and that the Industrial Relations Board should be well staffed in order to meet that kind of deadline.

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

Mr. Greer, are you aware of the recent ruling, which once again supports the port of Montreal's dockworkers, that their services and supply chains aren't considered essential?

How do you view your suggested amendments to the bill? Wouldn't they undermine strike and lockout rights, in your opinion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Give a short answer, please.

[Ryan Greer]

Yes, our members are aware of and are very concerned about the potential for a strike at the port of Montreal, for all the reasons you would expect, as it will impact their business, their employees and the livelihoods of their families.

In terms of the bill itself, some of the amendments that we suggest are just to take into account the national economic interests. As I said, when you have labour action at some of these supply chain nodes, it impacts communities and families that are often hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away from a situation that they have no control over whatsoever, and so that's why we propose what we're suggesting.

[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, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for meeting with our committee to discuss this crucial bill. My political party and I have contributed to the bill. This issue is close to my heart.

As Ms. Chabot pointed out, after major union struggles in Quebec, anti‑scab measures were adopted in 1977. This happened because men and women got organized, stood up for their rights and fought to improve their working and living conditions.

At the federal level, we aren't there yet, unfortunately. However, there are more and more examples at the provincial level, so that's a good sign. We're almost there.

I started working for the Canadian Union of Public Employees 22 years ago. Two weeks after I started, the year‑long labour dispute at Vidéotron began. The dispute lasted as long as it did because replacement workers were used. I think that this was my first exposure, in real life, to the impact of the lack of legislation in this area.

I'm not just talking about situations that took place 20 years ago. For example, two years ago, Ocean Group in Sorel‑Tracy was locked out. The employer paid replacement workers more than the locked‑out union members were asking for under their collective agreement. These are truly anti‑union tactics.

Right now, the dispute at the port of Quebec has been going on for over a year and a half.

Meanwhile, at Vidéotron in Gatineau, just across the river, hundreds of workers have been locked out. Every day they see other people taking their jobs and their pay.

In your experience, Ms. Bruske, how does this type of situation affect the lives of the families and spouses of these workers, who are watching their livelihoods slip through their fingers?

[Bea Bruske]

Absolutely.

When you see a replacement worker or scab crossing your picket line to go to work, of course that provides a significant amount of anger and frustration. We know that where replacement workers are utilized there's a significant division within the community, sometimes within families, especially in smaller communities and communities where there's one main employer and people work at that location.

We have seen violence on picket lines and we have seen incitement of workers and incitement of scabs, quite frankly, as well as management crossing the picket lines. People are struggling to put groceries on the table while they're on strike because, again, these are not quick decisions as to whether you're going to walk a picket line. To then be demoralized by having your employer rub salt in that wound by not offering you a fair deal and then hiring scabs and often paying them more than what they are paying you right now to break that strike is incredibly demoralizing.

It's been over 30 years since I was personally on a picket line but I can tell you every single person who walked that picket line with me and I can tell you every single person who crossed that picket line. That's well over 30 years ago.

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

Unfortunately, it has an impact.

We heard people say that the current bill would upset the delicate balance of power at bargaining tables. I'm a bit surprised, Ms. Bruske. In my opinion, in the federally regulated sectors, there isn't any balance at all. There's currently an imbalance. If the employer can use replacement workers, it doesn't face any economic impact. The employer continues to operate and revenue continues to flow in. There isn't any financial incentive to negotiate. Why would the employer return to the bargaining table to negotiate an employment contract if it can continue to operate, regardless of whether its activities are carried out by unionized workers or by replacement workers? There isn't any balance of power. Furthermore, in certain sectors, the federal government may threaten to pass special back‑to‑work legislation.

I would like an explanation of how this lack of a balance of power actually works when the imbalance is created by the use of replacement workers.

[Bea Bruske]

I spent 10 years at bargaining tables in my work career with the private and public sector workers Manitoba. I can tell you that not every employer is going to use scabs but those who do will indicate that pretty much on day one of bargaining. They will make that indication by the kinds of proposals that they table and by the attitude that they bring to the bargaining table about whether they are seriously looking at your proposals. They will be looking at tabling very aggressive proposals. Also, they will be looking to incite that situation rather than coming to the table to actually collectively discuss the issues at hand in a meaningful way to find a fair and reasonable resolve. Whether there's a mediator involved or not, it doesn't much matter if an employer is not prepared to actually come and fairly bargain a collective agreement.

By having the opportunity to continue to operate while there's an ongoing strike there's always going to be an imbalance because that means that there's no need for that employer to come to the bargaining table with the actual intent of reaching that collective agreement.

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

You said, in your remarks and in your responses, that the bill allows for exceptions where people can be brought in to work, for example in the event of a threat to human life, a threat to public health and safety, or a risk of a catastrophic environmental impact. I think that we all agree that these exceptions are perfectly reasonable.

However, I'm wary of concepts such as national interest or national economic interest. These concepts are sometimes a bit vague and can become a catch‑all for anything to restrict workers' rights.

[Bea Bruske]

Certainly, this bill provides an opportunity for essential services agreements to take those things into consideration and to come up with a resolve that the parties can agree on before a labour dispute starts.

Our issue is we want to make sure that the Canada Industrial Relations Board has a shorter turnaround window to get back to the parties in terms of what essential services need look like for that particular workplace, and then to let the parties continue in that bargaining process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

We'll go to Mr. Aitchison for five minutes.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

I actually want to take a bit of a different tack on this. I know the Canadian Labour Congress has affiliates in the construction business. Of course, we are in desperate need of more homes in this country. We know that builders are already struggling to attract and retain skilled tradespeople. In fact, the job vacancy rate in the construction sector in the third quarter of 2023 was 5.1%, which is among the highest across all of Canadian industries.

I'm wondering if there's anything about this bill or in this bill that you, Ms. Bruske, think might help attract more skilled tradespeople to the industry to help us build the homes we need.

[Bea Bruske]

Any time workers see they have a job to go to, and they're not likely going to be out on a picket line for any length of time—because their employer is going to come and bargain a fair collective agreement—it provides some comfort.

We know that trade unions are very focused on making sure that they are able to hire up into that trade stream so that we can meet the needs of builders and of communities as they're building these new houses, and we very much encourage that active participation. However, we also know that those workers want to see a fair and free collective bargaining agreement.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Of course, a lot of folks in the sector are aging out, and young people are not being attracted into it. Do you think that over the next 10 years, this is the same kind of argument that will help attract young people into the industry?

[Bea Bruske]

I think what's going to help attract people into the industry is, first of all, understanding that these are good jobs. They are good family- and community-sustaining jobs.

I think attracting newcomers to Canada, women and racialized workers into that industry is going to be incredibly important, and it's going to be an opportunity for unions to sit down with employers to find out what those challenges are to bring folks to that particular industry. It's things like child care. I know lots of women who want to work in trades, but if you don't have child care at seven in the morning when your shift starts, you're not going to be able to work in that particular field.

There are many things that need to be addressed, and I know that the trade unions are on these issues. They are very much focused on finding solutions, and we're going to be working with them to be able to achieve that goal.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thanks.

I want to thank you for being here.

There are some emerging issues, and I need to raise this now, unfortunately. I apologize for having to do this, but this is an issue that's come up.

I have a motion, Mr. Chair, that I'd like to move. Would you like me to read it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes. The floor is yours, Mr. Aitchison.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I move:

Trudeau is recycling the same costly promises that have already doubled housing costs in the last eight years. He has doubled the rent, doubled mortgage payments and doubled the needed down payment for an average home. Housing costs have worsened more in Canada than any other G7 country in Trudeau’s eight years.

According to a recent report from RBC, housing became more unaffordable in every single market tracked, including Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax and more, with some markets reaching all-time unaffordability levels. The average Canadian family must now pay 63.5% of their total pre-tax household income in order to afford mortgage payments on a typical home in Canada; therefore the committee report its concern regarding this matter to the House of Commons; and

(a) Invite the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to appear before committee for no less than two hours, by April 18, 2024; and

(b) Invite RBC Assistant Chief Economist Robert Hogue to testify before the committee for no less than two hours, by April 18, 2024.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Aitchison.

The clerk has advised me that the motion is in order. It has 48 hours' notice to the committee members. This is a processing committee. The member has moved a motion in his time. Now we must discuss that motion until we dispose of it.

For discussion, I have Mr. Fragiskatos and then Ms. Gray.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead on the motion of Mr. Aitchison.