Human Resources Committee on April 15th, 2024

[Sean Strickland]

Absolutely not. The strike is the absolute last resort for a union when they have failed to reach an amicable agreement at the bargaining table. A strike imposes and has our membership endure hardships that many of us cannot imagine. Union leadership takes great time and consideration in recommending to their membership that they go on strike.

Anyone who suggests for a minute that unions have a proclivity to strike is not in touch with today's economic and labour realities.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you for that. I'll get back to you, Sean.

Mr. Lapierre, do you want to comment on that?

[Nicolas Lapierre]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to answer that question.

We think that obviously shortens labour disputes for the simple reason that money is king. That's the way it is for workers and employers. Positions may be diametrically opposed at the start of a negotiation when a dispute's in the offing. We basically want to resolve issues at the bargaining table. That's what workers and employers want, and most issues are in fact resolved at the bargaining table.

The positions of both workers and employers often soften as the weeks go by, and people reach compromises. It eventually just becomes time to resolve the dispute. Disputes put pressure on families as well. I have to say that divorces and suicides occur when labour disputes drag on. Labour disputes are hard to live through. People don't do it for fun; they do it because they believe in something, in an ideal.

That's true of both workers and employers. If an employer imposes a lockout, it does so for its own reasons, and they have to be respected. Then a balance has to be maintained during negotiations. I can assure you that people are often more understanding a few weeks later and both sides look for a solution.

So it doesn't lengthen disputes; it shortens them.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you.

Ms. Abou-Dib, would you care to comment on that, please?

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

Sure.

I think the statement that unions want to go on strike is utterly absurd. I don't have the national stat—I was about to look it up—but I can definitely tell you from the Teamsters' perspective that over 98% of our collective agreements are negotiated peacefully and without conflict. The other 2% either have different forms of conflict, which include strikes or lockouts—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I'm sorry, but you've muted yourself.

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

Pardon me.

No one wants to go on strike and there's a loss for everyone in that situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much to all the witnesses.

Thank you for all the work you do every day to defend and promote the conditions of the members you represent.

That's also our role as parliamentarians. The Canada Labour Code should protect workers' rights, but I would add that it needs a lot of love these days. How can anyone explain how the use of replacement workers can still be permitted in 2024? It's insane.

To illustrate what I'm saying, I want to welcome the Videotron workers who are with us during our study of this bill. They've been locked out since last October. This is a good example for those people who wonder how long a dispute can last when replacement workers are brought in.

Mr. Lapierre, thank you very much for being here.

You've seen an example of this situation. We even saw what happened on the picket line at Océan remorquage, at the Sorel-Tracy marine terminal, and how that affected the length of a dispute.

Would you please tell us more about the consequences for negotiations on the working conditions of the striking workers that resulted in the use of replacement workers?

[Nicolas Lapierre]

The first consequence is the length of the dispute, which clearly wouldn't have lasted nine months if replacement workers hadn't been brought in. No employer wants to lose money for nine months, and workers never show any real desire to go through a nine-month labour dispute.

When a negotiation begins, you start with what you want to get, and sometimes it turns into a labour dispute. However, positions inevitably soften over weeks and months, and when people start losing money, that forces the parties to speak to each other.

In our members' dispute in Sorel-Tracy, the employer brought in scabs, and they walked through the picketers and their signs every morning. Some scabs were paid much higher wages than those of the employees. That decision was up to the employer, but it was very frustrating for the employees to see people come in and do their work. They were fighting for better work schedules and a better quality of life. It wasn't just a money issue; they were defending an ideal. They eventually won their case, but only after a nine-month dispute. The use of scabs lengthened the dispute.

As I said, labour disputes are hard on families. We underestimate the consequences of these kinds of disputes; when the family nest runs short of money, that often has an impact on the parents, children, sports and other recreational activities and people's ability to enjoy life. Workers do it out of principle, but the repercussions can't be downplayed. Collateral damage inevitably occurs, and that's what workers experience during labour disputes.

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

As a parliamentarian and member of the Bloc Québécois, which has introduced 11 bills on this issue since 1990, I, like you, can only welcome this bill. I have always said there's a difference between tabling a bill and actually passing it.

What's your interpretation? We assume that the intention is to prevent replacement workers from being used. However, many people have discussed exceptions that are provided for under this bill and that don't even appear in Quebec's Labour Code, as well as the bill's coming into force 18 months after royal assent.

Would you like to comment on that subject?

Do you think the bill, in its present form, will achieve its objective?

[Nicolas Lapierre]

That's definitely not the case. I didn't tell you about all the comments cited in the two briefs that were submitted.

The fact that the employer has the option of hiring subcontractors before the notice to bargain collectively is given makes no sense and completely distorts the bill. We find it hard to understand the intention behind that.

When I'm at a bargaining table and the other party asks me for something, I always wonder what that party wants. Sometimes I'm intrigued. In this instance, I'm trying to understand the upside of this kind of provision, apart from the fact that employers are being given a green light to hire outside resources before the notice to bargain collectively is even given. That's the only thing I can think of.

We also wonder about the proposed implementation timeline, which is 18 months. It's hard, even very hard, to understand why we need 18 months to implement this bill. We also wonder about various situations provided for in the bill. This isn't clear, but it seems that the parties would be compelled to agree on what essential services to maintain and to provide the necessary resources to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

I trust both parties when they negotiate. You have to support what goes on at the bargaining table. That's where it all has to happen. There are corrections to be made. Some are minor, but others are major, particularly regarding the option for the employer to bring in replacement workers before the notice to bargain collectively has even been given. That's the perfect opportunity for the employer to plan a labour dispute or lockout and to hire workers in advance. It really makes no sense to us.

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

Absolutely. We've been labelled conspiracists for making that argument, but we nevertheless think that it's a sound remark and that corrections should absolutely be made.

Federal public service employees have told us they're very surprised the bill doesn't cover federal employees.

Would you agree that this type of bill should also apply to the federal public service?

[Nicolas Lapierre]

Absolutely. I don't represent public service employees, but it's a matter of solidarity.

I also find it hard to understand why that choice was made in this bill. As the saying goes, you have to eat what's put in front of you. If the party that forms the present government, the Liberal Party, sees matters that way for all employers in Canada, it will have to make sure this bill also applies to its own employees. That's also happening here in Quebec.

However, the essential services issue will obviously have to apply. You can't use a single approach for everyone, but the fact that public service employees aren't covered by this bill is incomprehensible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Mr. Boulerice, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our guests, the invaluable witnesses who are before us today.

I come from a political party that has always been concerned with workers' rights. In our discussions and negotiations with this minority government and in the supply and confidence agreement that we've signed and that is public, we've said that this is a major win for us. However, that troubles some people.

Representatives of management associations came to see us last week and told us that there weren't enough exceptions in the bill and that they would completely discard it if they could. That clearly shows the path some groups have taken.

Mr. Lapierre, I'd just like to say that the Océan remorquage case is quite clear. I had a chance to meet your members.

I admit it was difficult and frustrating to see their livelihood being stolen from them by people who were being paid more than what they were seeking at the bargaining table. I mention that example, but there'll be others.

How do you think an anti-scab law could restore the balance between the parties at the bargaining table?

[Nicolas Lapierre]

As I said at the outset, it's entirely a matter of balance, a balance of power.

When I sit down at the bargaining table with an employer, I'm not sitting down with someone who's above or below me, but rather with an equal. So we negotiate as equals.

However, power has to be balanced. Let's imagine that I demand something or that an employer asks me to make a concession, that we don't agree or that the employer tells me that, one way or another, we'll have to accept his conditions or else he'll impose a lockout and continue operating. As you can understand, that kind of situation completely alters the bargaining table dynamic. That's what has to be rebalanced.

In a society of laws such as ours, where everyone has an equal chance, everyone must be provided with the same tools, the same “weapons”, as it were. It's important to reestablish the balance of power.That's how you stabilize labour relations and deal on an equal footing.

There's an imbalance right now, and that's what's changing the situation.

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

Thank you, Mr. Lapierre.

I want to say that I also agree with you that, if a business brings in subcontractors before sending a notice to negotiate, the subcontractors shouldn't be entitled to do the work of the members of the accreditation unit once the labour dispute is over. I think you're raising a major point there, which is very important.

Mr. Strickland, continuing in the same vein, I was quite appalled to hear you say that a labour dispute in British Columbia had lasted six years because scabs had been brought in. That's terrible.

You said something interesting in one sentence, that Bill C-58 would help stabilize the right to bargain collectively and help workers go back to work.

Would you please provide some more details on the subject, citing the LTS Solutions case that you discussed earlier?

[Sean Strickland]

Sure.

Similar to my brother Nicolas beside me here, I think it will stabilize the collective bargaining process, because as we know and as my brother from United Steelworkers mentioned, it's a power situation. When we're at the bargaining table, we have an equal amount of power, but that power is only trumped, from our side, by our ability to strike and withhold our services. That is the ultimate thing for a union to do, which we do not take lightly.

We have discussed previously how rare it is that we withdraw services. It's only when we're at an impasse. That is severely undermined when the employer has the ability to replace labour with replacement workers. If that ability is taken away from the employer, the power balance is restored and we're on more equal footing, which stabilizes the collective bargaining process for the benefit of the employer and the worker.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Abou‑Dib, you made an interesting point when you said we have to be able to make the necessary checks to determine whether the use of scabs is illegal or whether the agreement reached between the parties before the dispute is being complied with.

I was lucky, in a way, to visit a picket line consisting of workers subject to Quebec's anti-scab law. However, as it took too long to get inspectors on the ground, even the Quebec law, which is well known and has been enforced for decades, wasn't always complied with.

How important is it to avoid that trap in Bill C-58?

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Yes, we have to learn the lessons about how the other provinces, including Quebec, enforce their laws.

What has happened in Quebec and what's happening in British Columbia now is that it takes too much time to verify whether employers are complying with the act.

We want to support the government's ability to enforce the act. We really need to be serious about the resources needed to do the checks. We have to ensure that, if we want to enforce an act, the departments and agencies responsible must have the necessary resources to verify that enforcement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

There were two seconds left.

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Welcome to HUMA, Mr. Seeback. You're up next for five minutes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I certainly understand the importance of unions. I was going through some of the transcripts from the hearings, and I think Lana Payne said, “No country has achieved shared progress and prosperity for working people without strong unions and strong collective bargaining laws.” I assume you all agree with that. I wanted to let you know I agree with that.

I'm going to share a personal anecdote. My son works in construction and is a proud member of his local union. He worked in private sector construction for a while and was well treated, but there was no comparison to how he has been treated since he has been in a union. The pay is better and the safety is better. He is going to go to trade school and that will be paid for. The benefits are enormous. I understand the incredible value that workers get when they join a union. It has made a distinct improvement in his life.

I want to quickly talk about some aspects of the bill.

The first thing I want to ask about is clause 11, which adds new subsection 99.01(1). It talks about a complaint made to the CIRB for an employer's non-compliance, but it says the board must issue an order, if applicable, “within the time limit prescribed by the regulations or...as soon as feasible” if there's no time limit prescribed. That seems a little vague to me.

What do you think that time limit should be, or is there a current time limit? If so, do you think that time limit is acceptable?

[Nicolas Lapierre]

Unless I'm mistaken, the bill provides for a timeline of 90 days within which to be heard. We think that number should be reduced to 45 days for the process to be closer to reality. That obviously influences what will happen at the bargaining table and whether the parties will even go back to the table. Going back to what I said earlier, the idea is to maintain a balance of forces. If the employer is found to be in violation of the anti-scab legislation, someone must render that decision, the employer has to be informed that it must stop what it's doing, and it must be determined whether the parties will return to the bargaining table or proceed differently.

So that has to be done as soon as possible. The sooner the decision is made, the more realistic it will be, which is better for everyone, both employer and union.

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

I'd like to add to that, Mr. Seeback, if it's all right.

The brother is correct about the 90-day limit in the bill right now. It is actually a bit of an improvement on where we are today. However, I think if there's a need to go beyond the 90 days, the right to strike should be automatically granted to the workers if the CIRB has not rendered a decision.