Human Resources Committee on April 11th, 2024

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

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to all of our witnesses for appearing this morning.

Mr. Warren, I'll start with you.

I had the opportunity to raise USW at our last meeting—the infamous Stelco strike of 1946 and USW's fight for a 40-hour work week, as well as paid vacation. That's what I've read, because I certainly wasn't around in those days in 1946. The strike sounds a lot like what Mr. Ashton described with the longshoremen's fight many decades ago.

I've thought about Madame Senneville's opening comments, where she talked about the bill's being an essential bill. If I had to go back 60 or 70 years and say to those striking Stelco workers—who were fighting against the 2,000 scab members brought in—that it would take 70 years to get us to where we are today, I think they'd be very shocked.

Can you talk about the importance of how the implementation of this bill moves the labour movement forward and helps other unions—all those who've fought for decades and probably longer at other levels of government—try to implement the same?

[Marty Warren]

Absolutely.

As I said, it levels the playing field.

However, more importantly, the thing I would stress from that question is this: Everybody on this committee must understand that when there is a strike or lockout and scabs are brought into the facility, it destroys labour relations for decades. People don't forget that. I was out trying to survive on picket pay and feed my family as we watched other people, in darkened buses or what have you, going across the picket line. As I tell a lot of employers, that decision will come back and destroy labour relations for years. Our members don't forget. More importantly, I also see that a lot of the decision-making on bringing in scabs is at a very high level of employer who, quite frankly, is gone in two or three years. We, the locals and management, are left to pick up the pieces.

Again, in this global economy, if you're going to be one of those world-class suppliers or manufacturers, labour relations is the secret ingredient. If you have strong labour relations, you can get anything done. Trust. Build that relationship. Then, if you have a problem, we'll care about the problem and need to fix it. However, when you mistreat our members, lock them out and bring in scabs, all of that ability is gone, because all they remember—whether it be the father, grandfather, grandmother or aunt—is that they were locked out for six months while scabs took their jobs.

The impact on labour relations is huge, and it takes decades to try to fix that.

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

Thanks.

I ask this as a supplementary question, Mr. Warren. You referenced in your opening comments the health and safety provision language that's in the bill, the “keep the lights on” provisions that are in there to ensure that services that need to continue are protected and are provided to the public. We've received correspondence from a handful of employers who've talked about the possible loss of 911 services and the inability of Canadians to travel when they need to. Can you talk about the language that's there now and what it does for ensuring that services like 911 are still available to the public after a disruption, lockout or a strike?

[Marty Warren]

From a union and a steelworker perspective, the idea is not to cripple the public and the environment or affect.... We need somewhere to go back to work, so having the essential services, the powerhouse running and any component of that.... To talk about travel, absolutely there's essential travel, but does that include every Canadian who wants to go on a vacation? I'm not sure. We can have that discussion. I think essential travel is this group here today who have to get in and out of Ottawa. You're running the country. Stuff like that is important. That's why the discussion, as you heard me say, needs to first be done around essential services, with the union and the employer, and if they can't figure it out, then it can go to the IRB.

I will add as a last comment that we—whether they are provincial strikes, more provincial strikes than federal strikes—worked with employers. We have our own members, and that's why it's important to talk to the union and to come in and run the powerhouse, because when the work stoppage or lockout ends with a negotiated settlement, we all need somewhere to go back to and that can get up and running in a fairly quick fashion.

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

Madame Senneville, I have about one minute left. You referenced health and safety in your comments. Quebec, of course, has been a leader in this area as it relates to the legislation that we're dealing with. Can you talk about the statistics of how health and safety has probably been improved from not having replacement workers enter the workforce, who might not have the same training as those people who are unionized?

[Caroline Senneville]

Absolutely.

In Quebec, we have an essential services commission. This means that wrongdoers can be caught, but also that workers and employers can have their grievances heard.

There was a strike recently in the public sector. In this type of situation, a person working as an accountant in a hospital will certainly go on strike. However, a nurse in intensive care won't get any strike time, because their work is considered 100% essential. The same thing applies to cities, especially when it comes to public transit.

Again, it's possible to provide a level of essential services that eliminates all risks, while maintaining the balance of power. A better balance of power means shorter labour disputes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. I say this to my colleagues on the committee who are from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party—and I don't have to convince my NDP colleague—you illustrate the extent to which union representation helps make our society fairer, more egalitarian and more democratic. I commend you on the work you do every day to defend the interests of workers.

Let me start off by welcoming Ms. Senneville and asking her a question.

You talked about the last public sector strike in Quebec, which was one for the history books. The strike showed that a collective bargaining agreement is always the best kind of agreement and that power should be wielded with restraint.

Contrary to what employers believe, employees do not go on strike gladly. They do so to assert their rights in a lawful manner.

Some comments were made about this bill suggesting that it did not apply to employees of the federal public service. Would you agree that this part should be reviewed?

[Caroline Senneville]

Yes, absolutely.

The people we represent in the federal public sector are correctional officers, and they don't have the right to strike. That said, we stand in solidarity with the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec and the Canadian Labour Congress, which represent federal employees. We have often bemoaned the fact that the absence of anti-scab legislation at the federal level creates two classes of workers in Quebec. Nor do we want to create two classes of workers elsewhere by excluding the public service.

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

I believe that we are all in favour of the bill, but there is a heck of a difference between introducing such a bill and getting it passed. We have a minority government and anything can happen. We also deplore the fact that the bill would come into force 18 months after royal assent. In the end, it is as if nothing will actually happen.

Are you unequivocally recommending the removal of the 18 month timeframe, so that the provisions of the bill would come into force as soon as the bill receives royal assent?

[Caroline Senneville]

Yes.

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

You used the image of Swiss cheese to talk about the holes in the bill. Quebec's anti-strikebreaking law makes it impossible to hire a worker from another bargaining unit before a strike notice or notice to commence collective bargaining is given. Under Bill C‑58, however, such tactics would be allowed. Even though the bill aims to prevent the use of replacement workers, it does allow for exceptions.

In your opinion, how does this undermine the very spirit of the bill?

[Caroline Senneville]

If you call a strike, then there has to be a strike. If all kinds of exceptions can be used and the work of the strikers can be done by other workers, be they subcontractors or people from other units, there is no strike. One of our major criticisms of the bill is the list of exceptions.

What we want is for Supreme Court rulings to apply fully and when a strike is called, for there to be a strike.

Ms. Egarhos could tell you more about all the types of exceptions. However, in our opinion, all those exceptions should be removed entirely from the bill, except those that protect essential services, of course.

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

Employers, whom we will be hearing from in the second hour of the meeting, would like to add economic interests to the list of essential services, which is quite broad.

With regard to economic interests, you said in your presentation that when strikebreakers are used, it is first and foremost the workers who suffer the consequences.

Do you think it's a good idea to add economic interests to the list of exceptions?

[Caroline Senneville]

No, it's not a good idea. When you weigh up all the factors, you realize that economic interests have nothing to do with environmental risks or risks to health and safety, for example.

When we go on strike, we deprive ourselves of a salary. The employer also has to suffer the consequences, because that is part of the balance of power. That is how we get the parties to negotiate and come to an agreement that is satisfactory to both parties. This is how both the company and the community come out ahead.

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

Would you say that there would be more strikes if we banned the use of replacement workers, as some witnesses have claimed?

[Caroline Senneville]

No. I have said it before and I will say it again: when a strike is called, it is a very serious decision. Being on strike is no picnic.

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

Indeed. That's pretty clear.

Mr. Warren, I'd like to ask you a question.

We talked about the historic moment when the right to strike was decriminalized. Questions have been asked about this, and you mentioned what a momentous event it was for workers.

And yet even today, we are seeing labour disputes drag on. The steelworkers of the port of Sorel-Tracy in Quebec were on strike for more than a year, during which time replacement workers were used who were paid three times the wages of the strikers.

Is that acceptable? What was the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Mr. Warren, you'll have to comment on that in another answer if you choose to.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before asking the witnesses questions, I would just like to point out the presence in the room of Sébastien, a Videotron worker in Gatineau who has been locked out for more than six months now. He has to deal with the fact that replacement workers are taking his work and his salary. I think it's important to show that we're not just talking about events that happened 10 or 20 years ago. Right now, workers are still suffering the consequences of the use of replacement workers. My thanks to Sébastien for being with us today.

Ms. Senneville, you said you were touched to be here because this was an essential bill and a historic moment. I want to tell you that I feel the same way.

I would like to hear more from you about what Bill C‑58 will do for the members of the CSN in certain federations and in certain sectors. As a union leader, can you tell us what will change compared to what you have experienced in recent years?

[Caroline Senneville]

I have been working at the CSN for more than 25 years. One of the disputes that affected me the most was the one involving the Cargill grain elevator on the North Shore, in Quebec. People were locked out for 38 months, during which time they saw workers take their place. It's extremely hard to go through something like that. I witnessed it.

I did not want to mention the asbestos strike, because it seemed too far back in time, but since other people have touched on historical facts, I will talk about it. In 1949, scabs were used in the town of Asbestos, and it is true that this had an impact on the community for generations. When I met with union members in the 1980s, some people told me that they no longer spoke to members of a certain family because their father had been a strikebreaker. This type of situation definitely creates bad blood throughout the community.

I'm also thinking of the violence that erupts on picket lines when workers have to physically prevent other workers from entering the workplace. In the example given by Ms. Chabot, it is all the more galling when strikebreakers are paid much more than workers.

My mother went on strike in the public service of Canada to get what is now called maternity leave. No one at this table would question maternity leave today.

Yes, strikes are hard, both for businesses and for workers, but sometimes they also help us move forward as a society.

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

We are talking about social gains made thanks to people who, year after year, decade after decade, had the courage to take a stand.

Specifically, you talked about the importance of the Canada Industrial Relations Board's resources, particularly in terms of investigation processes. Under the current bill, which I agree could be greatly improved, in a labour dispute, an employer could continue to use subcontractors that it employed before the notice to commence collective bargaining is sent out, i.e., several months earlier. However, the subcontractors would have to be performing tasks of the same nature and of the same scope.

Resources will be needed to launch an investigative process to verify whether these conditions are being met. There could also be all sorts of maneuvering and violations in this regard if we are not able to send inspectors to check if the nature of the work, the number of hours or the number of tasks has changed.

[Caroline Senneville]

If the bill is passed, we will have to take the necessary steps to ensure that its provisions are enforced. Even if our wish is granted and all exceptions are removed from the bill, inspectors will have to go into the field. This need is being felt in Quebec. It is being felt in hotels, for example, where workers are being brought in. We must be able to investigate and bear witness to what is going on.

What you are saying is interesting. Indeed, the longer the list of exceptions, the more complicated the inspectors' investigative work will be. So there will have to be more inspectors.

Having said that, a strike is a strike. We should give ourselves the necessary means, both legislative and practical, to enforce these provisions.

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

Absolutely.

Mr. Warren, thank you for being with us today. This is an important topic.

I will come back to the exceptions which make it possible to use replacement workers. You said there were too many loopholes.

If a few exceptions were to be removed, which ones should be a priority, in your opinion?

[Marty Warren]

I think they're all important, just because unless they're there for essential services, there is no reason for another worker, in whatever category, to do the work of a locked-out or striking member. That is important. I don't want to pick one above the other.

The fact is it should be clear: there should be whatever we need to conserve the essential services we talked about, and all others should be off the list. An example could be what is the strike about? The strike by tugboat operators, which we experienced in Quebec, wasn't a strike about economics. The scabs got more money than the steelworkers tugboat operators did.