Human Resources Committee on April 11th, 2024

[Marty Warren]

Again, the pitfalls happen if it's not an essential duty to talk about the upkeep of the facility, the environment and health and safety. The risk is that the law doesn't have the teeth it needs.

Any legislation that is legislation that doesn't work, like the Westray Law doesn't work, is ineffective. To give it effect, to give it bargaining table effect, it must, again, limit the number of workers with no shortcuts and no loopholes.

[Caroline Senneville]

My answer is one sentence long: we need real anti-scab legislation.

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

Thank you very much.

What do you think, Mr. Ashton? Including the notion of national economic interests in an anti-strikebreaker bill could be problematic. What do you think the effect might be on workers' rights?

[Robert Ashton]

Every single employer in the country will say that it has a national economic impact on the country if that's in this legislation. The economic impacts of Canada should not be above workers' rights in this country. A worker should have the ability to go on strike, no matter where they are or what they do. When I did my 13-day strike, I heard people call me an economic terrorist. That's disgusting. We're representing workers.

The economy of Canada has recovered and always does recover, so let's talk economics; let's talk about wages for workers.

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

That's perfect. Thank you very much, Mr. Ashton.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

With that, we will conclude the first round. We must suspend for the next panel.

On behalf of the committee, to the witnesses who appeared in the first hour, thank you for your testimony.

Thank you very much.

We'll suspend for three minutes. Our witnesses are in the room and there's no sound testing required.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I'll call the committee back to order for our second panel of witnesses.

From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Brodie Berrigan, director, government relations; and Todd Lewis, vice-president.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have Christina Santini, director, national affairs; and Jasmin Guénette, vice-president, national affairs.

From the Federally Regulated Employers, we have Derrick Hynes, president and chief executive officer.

Mr. Lewis will be delivering the statement for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

You have five minutes or less.

[Todd Lewis, Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Hello, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Todd Lewis, and I am first vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I grow grain, canola and lentils just south of Regina, Saskatchewan, in a little town called Gray.

The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization. We represent over 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada, and they are the heart of the Canadian agri-food system, which generates $143.8 billion of Canada's gross domestic product—around 7%.

Canadian farmers proudly produce high-quality agriculture and agri-food products, of which over 92 billion dollars' worth was exported to trade partners around the world in 2022. Canada is an exporting nation. The flow of goods generated from trade is intimately tied to our standard of living. Countries around the world purchase Canadian agricultural products due to our reputation as a reliable supplier of high-quality products. However, if these products are unable to reach overseas customers due to a prolonged labour disruption, this has a direct impact on Canadian farmers, the Canadian economy and our reliability as an exporting nation.

For example, as noted in the final report of the national supply chain task force, labour disruptions in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022 “all affected how logistics and supply chain decision-makers and international businesses view Canada’s reliability as a place to do business.” It said that “even the threat of strikes or lockouts negatively affects the operation of the national transportation supply chain and, in turn, Canada’s reputation as a destination of choice for doing business.”

Let me be very clear: We recognize the importance of free and fair collective bargaining in Canada, and we support the rights of unionized workers to negotiate fairly with their employers. However, we believe that the movement of agriculture and agri-food products should be viewed as necessary, and certain exemptions must be made to the proposed legislation, Bill C-58, to recognize the importance of maintaining the movement of these goods during labour disputes.

There is precedent for this. In 1998, amendments were made to the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by then minister of labour Lawrence MacAulay, which prohibited the cessation of work among longshore workers loading grain vessels during a strike or lockout. However, these amendments only apply to bulk grain movement and do not apply to container movement of grain and perishable goods.

Prohibiting the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces during a strike or lockout could cripple Canada’s food supply chains.

Because the railways have a dual monopoly over the shipment of grain in Canada, producers and shippers have very limited options. In most cases, they have only one option to maintain service during a labour disruption.

As a result, we recommend that the employer's ability to re-assign existing non-unionized workers within a company, including management staff, be maintained when necessary to maintain Canada’s domestic food and feed supply. Our hope would be that management could still provide critical functions during such stoppages to allow for the flow of agricultural goods. In our view, this would maintain the integrity of the collective bargaining process by preventing a return to full capacity, while at the same time providing a means of keeping some minimal level of service and the flow of agricultural goods where there are no other options for Canadian shippers.

For this to be reflected in Bill C-58, we recommend the addition of a new paragraph (c) under proposed subsection 94(7) “Exception—threat, destruction or damage” of the Canada Labour Code, stating that “the use of the services is necessary to maintain the flow of essential goods necessary for the maintenance and preservation of Canada’s domestic food and feed supply and global food security.”

The agricultural sector has faced seven work stoppages over the past six years alone. Prolonged work stoppages not only threaten our international reputation but also have real impacts on Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy.

In conclusion, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak today. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Guénette, you have five minutes or less.

[Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Good morning. My name is Jasmin Guénette.

I'm the vice-president of national affairs with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I am here with my colleague, Christina Santini, director of national affairs. We would like to thank the committee for the invitation today. I will make my remarks in English, but I can answer questions in both French and English.

The CFIB, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, represents 97,000 small business owners in all sectors of the economy and in all regions of the country, Canadian SMEs that are concerned about the potential negative impact of this bill on their business, the people they employ and those they serve. Both my colleague and I will share comments for you to consider as you review the bill and look at potential amendments.

First, it takes a simple majority of 50% plus one of members in a bargaining unit to vote in favour of a strike to launch one. Should a vote that would paralyze a large and essential infrastructure, like a port or railway, and harm so many businesses, not require a much higher threshold and higher voter turnout? Also, should all offers and counter-offers be disclosed to all concerned workers as soon as they are tabled?

That could improve union democracy and transparency.

Second, ports, railways, interprovincial trucking and other federally regulated critical infrastructure should be considered essential services so that they remain operational at all times. Also, a long strike can have harmful consequences for the economy that are disproportionate to the benefit one union can obtain.

The negative economic impact of strikes on SMEs can be major: loss of sales, loss of inventory, obligation to reduce production and workers' hours, additional storage fees and potential financial penalties based on contracts' timelines. A long strike can undermine the ability of many individuals to earn a living along the supply chain.

Could a cost analysis study by an independent third party be required to evaluate the costs and impacts of a strike for the economy, for SMEs and for Canadians, before any strike is even allowed to happen? If the impacts and costs are deemed potentially severe, a general strike could not be allowed.

[Christina Santini, Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Ultimately, the concern is that this bill, as written, could further embolden unions to walk away from the table and result in a greater incidence of strike action, and even more disturbances along the supply chain.

British Columbia and Quebec, where greater restrictions on the use of replacement workers have been enacted, have experienced more work stoppages than most of their counterparts, including the federally regulated private sector.

Canada’s SMEs, the people they employ, the communities they serve, and the economy they contribute to do not need more work stoppages.

Overall, 73% of our members with an opinion said that they would not support a ban on replacement workers, and 92% supported having federally regulated workplaces that are instrumental to the supply chain be defined as essential services.

Thus, the CFIB opposes the adoption of this bill. We continue to recommend that workers instrumental to the supply chain be deemed essential, referring them to binding arbitration. This bill needs to be thoroughly reviewed. We are happy to answer questions.

Thank you for having us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Santini.

Mr. Hynes, for five minutes or less.

[Derrick Hynes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications]

Thank you, Chair.

I appear before you today as a representative from FETCO, which is an association that represents most of Canada's major airlines, courier companies, marine ports, railways, telecom firms and others in their capacity as employers.

FETCO members employ nearly two-thirds of all workers in the federally regulated private sector. Our members are overwhelmingly unionized, with decades of productive collective bargaining with most major private sector unions.

A lot has been said over the last few months related to Bill C-58, which will effectively ban the use of replacement workers during a work stoppage. Unfortunately, from our perspective, much of what has been said to date is simply not rooted in documented reality.

This debate needs to be focused on evidence. The literature proves two things clearly. Replacement worker bans result in more strikes and longer strikes. These bans incentivize strike activity and discourage collective bargaining.

Those most affected by replacement worker bans are everyday Canadians. When major employers like airlines, ports, railways and telecoms are shut down, supply chains break. Shipments are halted, packages are not delivered, passengers are stranded, Internet and cable services are shut down and banking stops. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are affected because the critical services provided by major federally regulated organizations are no longer possible.

To date, neither the government nor any union has presented a shred of documented evidence that demonstrates how this improves the collective bargaining process. In fact, the Minister of Labour reminds us that 96% of all bargaining in the federal private sector ends without a work stoppage.

While it is not perfect, the system is working. This bill is proposing to fix a problem that does not exist. This debate was settled 30 years ago in a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code. Balance exists. Nothing is gained, that can be demonstrably proven, from banning replacement workers. Government should not be introducing legislation that is sure to add instability to already vulnerable supply chains.

We need to set the record straight on what a replacement worker is. These are not scores of random people hired off the street. These are typically current employees of the company, such as managers, supervisors or contractors with whom the employer has a pre-existing relationship. These are temporary measures.

Replacement workers keep the lights on and provide a basic level of service until the strike ends. This is the collective bargaining system in action. It's not a flaw, but an actual design feature. When the strike ends, all unionized employees go back to work and temporary replacement workers leave.

What is sometimes hidden in this debate is the fact that a replacement worker ban gives very small bargaining units in large organizations an ability to shut down the entire organization. This can happen at an airline, an airport, a railway, a marine port or in telecom. The extended supply chain impacts can be extensive.

Federal elected officials have known for decades this is a bad idea. Though it has come up at least a dozen times in the past 15 years, it has always been rejected by parliamentarians. There's nothing in this bill or the process that led to it that makes it any different from past efforts.

Public policy should be based on documented facts. This is not that.

As employers, we live in the real world. We recognize, given that we are here today, that this bill seems to be getting traction with MPs. Our preference is that you reject this bill in its entirety, but if you're going to proceed, we sincerely urge you to amend it in several ways as specifically requested in our submission to you that we filed recently.

In short, first, this bill needs more flexibility as it relates to the use of contractors. The bill is too restrictive in this space. Let us not lose sight of the fact that contractors are workers, too, and many have long-lasting relationships with the organizations I represent.

Two, unionized employees who want to work should not be prohibited from doing so. If you agree that we live in an era of cost of living challenges, why would we take away anyone’s right to choose to go to work?

Three, exceptions to these rules must accommodate national economic interest or national economic security as they relate to both replacement workers and essential services. The current bar is simply too high. It includes threat to life, threat of destruction of property and threat of environmental disaster. These are apocalyptic-level exceptions.

Finally, dates related to these provisions should back up, we believe, to the notice of dispute rather than the notice to bargain.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry for going over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Hynes.

We'll begin with Mrs. Gray for the opening round of questions.

Mrs. Gray, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

My first questions are for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

We know there are a lot of incredible challenges that the agriculture industry and farmers are facing. To list just a few, there are the announcements of restrictions on fertilizer usage and there are the yearly increases in carbon taxes. There's the announcement that was just made by the Bank of Canada that it's holding interest rates high. For any farmers who have loans or lines of credit, this is going to continue to cost them more. Payroll taxes increased on January 1, and there are others.

I'm wondering if you can speak to the cost pressures that Canadian farmers are facing, and how this may affect the business decisions they're making.

[Todd Lewis]

Farmers are always price-takers. We're not price-makers. We can't negotiate the prices that we receive for our product in the majority of agriculture in Canada. Of course, the supply-managed sector is different.

What we see, when it comes to this kind of legislation, is there are such big supply chains that are affected. Something like a port or a railroad takes a long time to recover from a strike, and it takes a long time to unwind the backlog that occurs during a strike. The Canadian grain monitor, Quorum, suggests that for every day of a strike, it takes a week to unwind that at the port, so with a 14-day strike, we can lose up to a quarter of our shipping season because of that, and that backlogs all the way to the economic reality on Canadian farms, where if we can't ship, we can't pay. We don't get paid.

I think that's where we see the idea, in this legislation, that we want an exemption to ensure that Canadian products move. At the same time, let's realize that this is food, and it's food security not only for Canada, but for our international customers as well.

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

Thank you.

Also on that note, I wanted to ask about the carbon tax farm fuel exemptions that are being talked about. I'm just wondering if you have any comments on that and how it could affect farmers.

[Todd Lewis]

Of course, as farmers, we think Bill C-234 should go through unamended, with what was originally put forward by the House of Commons. I think we'll just leave it at that.

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

Great. Thank you very much.

I'll move over to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

When you look at your members from across the country who have small and medium-sized businesses and you hear about their challenges.... We know a lot of small businesses are still carrying a lot of debt from the pandemic that they haven't been able to pay off. We know, again, with the higher interest rates, that their debt loads are a lot more and their costs are going up.

I'm wondering if you can speak to some of the current challenges that the small and medium-sized businesses are facing that you're hearing about.

[Jasmin Guénette]

Certainly.

Right now, the level of optimism of small business owners is quite low, and there are many reasons for that. One is that every single line of a small business budget is increasing. Whether it's their insurance costs, taxes, regulation costs, wage costs or borrowing costs, every single line of a small business budget is increasing.

Also, the current demand is falling, so there's insufficient domestic and foreign demand for our small businesses in Canada. They are still facing huge pressure from labour shortages.

Small businesses have to carry a huge amount of debt, notably because of the pandemic, and the level of sales is low. The increased cost of doing business is hitting small businesses really hard, so the current situation is quite difficult for many of our members.

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

Great. Thank you very much.

To Federally Regulated Employers–Transportation and Communications, you do have some large employers, but you have some smaller employers as well. I have a similar question for you about some of the business challenges you're hearing from your members.

[Derrick Hynes]

Most of my members are large employers, with a number of medium-sized employers in the mix. I hear regularly across the membership, particularly in the space in which I operate around the workplace, lots of concern around a lot of the regulatory burden. That is certainly something I've heard from members, that they've seen more change in the last five, six or seven years than they had seen decades previously. That is certainly of real concern to them.

This bill is a perfect example of that. It's why we're here today to talk about it.

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

Thank you. So that would be red tape and regulatory burden.

I'll ask you really quickly, because I'm almost out of time here, about one other thing. It's with respect to the unemployment rate going up, which we've heard about. I'm wondering if you have any comments on that announcement and if you're hearing any concerns from your members about that.

[Derrick Hynes]

Certainly, members are concerned about the economy writ large. I represent a group of employers who provide critical services to Canadians. Obviously, we want those businesses to be successful. When they're successful, more Canadians are employed. When we see an uptick in the unemployment rate, obviously that is a concern and one that we monitor closely.

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

Thank you.