Human Resources Committee on April 15th, 2024

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

That takes me back to asking how the CIRB is functioning.

A lot of this has the potential to end up back there when you're determining whether someone is violating the anti-scab rules. It can all go back to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Is it resourced properly? Is it staffed properly? Are you happy with the composition of the board? How has it worked for you in the past?

[Sean Strickland]

I will defer to my colleagues on that question.

From our perspective, the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs more resources. Given this pending legislation and its ultimate passage, the implications for more enforcement through the bill have the further implication that more resources are needed at the CIRB.

I will let my brother and sister respond more directly.

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

We've been saying that more resources are needed. Our evaluation of the CIRB is that it plays an extremely important role in labour relations at the federal level. There isn't a problem with the CIRB, other than the fact that it has insufficient resources to deal with the demands.

On the question of demands and the maintenance of service, the most important folks for determining that really should be the two parties—the union and the employer. The CIRB truly should be the absolute last resort in that particular aspect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Now we will go to Mr. Collins for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses today.

Ms. Abou-Dib, sometimes governments are elected and they don't have the best interests of workers at heart. We saw that with Bill C-377 in the Harper government, and we've seen that recently in the province of Ontario, where the premier capped wages at 1%, which went to court and was deemed unconstitutional.

You referenced the provinces. I'm not asking you to talk about the politics of this, but one thing I've asked witnesses about is the fact that when this legislation is passed, it will be added to a list that has laws from Quebec and British Columbia, and will probably go a long way to helping the union movement by implementing the same kind of legislation in other provinces where there currently is no protection for workers.

Can you comment on the importance of what this legislation will do to assist the movement in provinces where at present there might be push-back the other way in violation of workers' rights, as we've seen with Ontario's wage cap?

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

You're correct in your analysis and in trying to bring out the important role the federal government has in leading the way when it comes to legislation and creating a fairer society for all Canadians. When the Supreme Court rules that the right to strike, the right to collective bargaining and the right to freedom of association are charter rights, that should trickle down not only at the federal level but into the provincial jurisdictions as well. Just as with minimum wage and other progressive labour legislation adopted at the federal level, provinces often fall in line.

It's absolutely key to creating the conditions for provinces to take up a ban against replacement workers.

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

Thanks for that answer.

I'll follow up with another reference you made in your opening statement. You talked about how the use of replacement workers not only undermines the collective bargaining process but also creates a sense of resentment and can lead to violence.

I referenced in the previous two meetings the United Steelworkers' efforts in the 1940s when they fought for a 40-hour work week in Hamilton with Stelco, as well as their fight for paid vacation days. When 2,000 scab workers were brought in at that time, bricks, bats and other things were used with police and the company representatives. For decades, those stories were told in the city of Hamilton in relation to the company's actions and the people who went in as replacement workers. It can create labour relations issues for decades.

Can you talk about the importance, with this legislation, of avoiding those scenarios, which there are clear examples of? The longshoremen, who were here the other day, provided a similar story. I'm interested in your thoughts regarding the same.

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

I don't think we can underscore enough the fact that the use of replacement workers undermines the collective bargaining process. Very bluntly, it pits worker against worker. I don't necessarily agree that at the bargaining table we're equal. The fact of the matter is that the employer pulls the purse strings. They have the money.

What we have is our labour as workers. That is our power. We don't have the money. If we cannot exercise the withdrawal of our labour, do so safely and have an impact on the employer, then it is a meaningless right.

In that situation, you create resentment and anger. You create a scenario where, once again, you are pitting human beings against each other. Everybody wants to make a living, and the striking workers are not making their living. Watching someone else come in and take their job is not an acceptable solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

You have two and a half minutes, Ms. Chabot.

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

There has been an act in Quebec since 1977. Quebec's Labour Code expressly provides that the Minister of Labour may investigate a place of work during a strike or lockout to ensure that anti-scab provisions are being complied with. During a strike or lockout, workers may not be at the place of work or ascertain what is going on there. They may observe what the replacement workers are doing outdoors, but not indoors.

Mr. Lapierre, do you think a similar provision should be added to Bill C-58? It currently provides no such thing.

[Nicolas Lapierre]

Every measure must be put in place to ensure that the investigation and verification process is conducted. Earlier we talked about taking diligent action regarding the necessary time and the court's reaction time, but we also need to include resources. Rigorous action must definitely be taken by either the minister or the investigator.

We now have 90 days. Last year, I conducted a negotiation and we waited months, to the point where we didn't need it anymore. The parties went back to the table, for all kinds of reasons, and reached an agreement. It took months for us to be heard. So some rigour and diligent action need to be added.

Earlier I talked about real time. The closer you follow events, the more you avoid unfortunate incidents, and you ensure that the parties talk to each other.

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

I'm going to yield the rest of my time to you.

What's essential is that the right to strike is a fundamental right recognized in our charters. However, the use of scab labour runs counter to the right of association and negotiation.

I'd like you to tell us how important it is for balanced and harmonious labour relations to pass this kind of legislation.

[Nicolas Lapierre]

It's important.

I mentioned in my remarks that I've had extensive discussions with our members, the family.

People are disenchanted, but I really believe in the legislative process that's going on here. This is necessary, and it's through these kinds of processes that we increase people's trust and explain to them why we're going to vote: Ultimately, it produces foundational results for everyone.

I previously testified before the Canada Pension Plan committee. Now I'm here regarding the anti-scab law. It's important to send a signal to the members.

I'm going to conclude by asking you to act in a diligent, non-partisan manner so the process can be conducted as quickly as possible.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot, and Mr. Lapierre.

Mr. Boulerice, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lapierre, allow me to take 30 seconds and continue on with what you were saying. I think it's important that everyone around the table work well together to improve and enhance the bill, and to defend workers. That's not just a constitutional right; good, free and collective bargaining also helps maintain and improve working and living conditions. In fact, an anti-scab law is a wealth distribution tool. I think this has to be viewed in that perspective as well.

Mr. Lapierre, you just talked about timelines, and that troubles me a bit. You mentioned months.

Ms. Abou-Dib, you also talked about timelines. However, one of those that you want to see shortened is the 18-month delay in the coming into force of the act, which the majority considers too long. There's also the 90-day timeline, which we would like to see shortened.

I would like you to explain to us why it's important for Teamsters Canada that the process be much faster and more efficient.

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

If we want the implementation of the act to be really meaningful and to help protect workers, the timelines must be the same.

The act currently prescribes no solution after the 90 days following the request of essential services. What's the solution in that case? I believe that, regardless of the decision made after 90 days, and if there is no list or agreement, the right of those workers must automatically be respected. That's all.

That urges us on a little more to do the necessary work to determine what those essential services are.

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

Thank you.

I find that interesting, since this would become prescriptive and we wouldn't be at a loss if the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB, were unable to render its decision within the timelines already provided under the act.

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

I agree with you. That's an accurate comment.

You can't have written law confirmed by the Supreme Court without the support of statutes and regulations to implement it. That shouldn't be able to undermine the collective bargaining process. However, the use of scab labour actually does undermine the collective bargaining process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Abou-Dib.

That concludes our first hour of questioning.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing.

We'll suspend for a few minutes while we bring in the next witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, committee members.

We will begin the second hour of our deliberations on Bill C-58 with our new witnesses.

We have Charles Smith as an individual, appearing virtually. From the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Mark Hancock and Annick Desjardins. From the United Steelworkers, Local 1944, we have Donna Hokiro and Corey Mandryk.

Welcome.

We'll begin with Professor Smith for five minutes or less.

[Charles Smith, Associate Professor, Political Science, Saint Thomas More College, As an Individual]

Thank you for allowing me to be here. I apologize that I'm not able to attend in person. Somewhat ironically, the teachers in Saskatchewan are in a rotating strike position, and I've been having to pick up my kids for lunch hours, so we were unable to leave until last week.

I really am honoured to be before this committee. I think this is a very important bill. I have been following the debates in the House and in this committee quite closely.

In looking at the bill as a whole, I want to argue before this committee—and I have submitted my speaking notes—that as presented, it is a logical extension of Canada's industrial relations system, which is based, and has historically been based since its inception in the 1940s, on the notion of industrial peace.

In short, I want to argue that anti-scab legislation as presented in this bill is an important tool to further promote the Government of Canada's long-held policy goal. In the words of industrial relations scholars Jon Peirce and Karen Bentham, this is “to regulate strikes with an eye to protecting the public interest and maintaining public peace and order”.

In making this argument, I don't want to repeat the points that have been made by unions and businesses in critiquing or supporting the bill. Rather, I want to take up the challenge that was raised before this committee on April 11 by some of the presenters, who said, “much of what has been said to date is simply not rooted in documented reality.” They claim that the literature proves two things clearly. One is that “Replacement worker bans result in more strikes”; the other is that they result in “longer strikes”.

I fundamentally disagree with this interpretation of the data. It is, in my opinion, a narrow reading of the literature on strikes and lockouts in Canada. I'll further seek to explain my argument—which is laid out in more detail in my submission—by looking at the two jurisdictions that have introduced anti-scab legislation: Quebec and British Columbia.

There are a few things before I get to that particular point.

When we look at Canada's industrial relations system, it's built on this idea of industrial peace. Since the 1940s, the Canadian government's provincial counterparts have designed an industrial relations system that is very much designed to restrict the ability of organizations like unions to withdraw their labour at will. They can only do it in very specific times and in very specific circumstances. They have to go through a significant set of legal hurdles to withdraw their labour, and that's declared a legal strike. I could get into that in more detail if people want, but I'm sure you are aware of it.

They can only strike after declaring an impasse in bargaining. Usually, in most jurisdictions, they can only do so after a mandatory cooling-off period before mandatory conciliation. All strikes must be authorized by a vote of the membership. The list goes on and on.

My argument would be that the governments in Canada have already put up significant hurdles for unions to withdraw their labour and to declare a legal strike, all with the policy goal of declaring industrial peace.

Once a legal strike has been declared, though, the one remaining hurdle that contributes to more intensity on the picket line—and we have documented this with qualitative research interviewing strikers over the past 40 years—is that when scabs are used, there's a high likelihood of more intense violence on the picket line. That is a well-documented result of the use of replacement workers in Canada and in Canadian strike history.

Taken together, what I would summarize, using the examples so far, is that legal rules in the Canadian system already place numerous restrictions on workers' ability to strike. In so doing, when workers take that legal action, they're not doing it in any willy-nilly kind of way. They're following a very specific set of rules that were developed over the last 80 years or so.

However, we're still left with this conundrum of how we can maintain peace and stability on the picket line. I would argue that this bill goes a long way to doing that. We know this because two jurisdictions in Canada have implemented anti-scab legislation, and they're both long-standing. They've lasted the test of time, and they haven't been withdrawn by governments of any political stripe.

In Quebec, in 1977, the Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque passed an anti-scab bill to address some serious concerns with the construction industry. In 1993, the government of Mike Harcourt did something similar in British Columbia.

With regard to two claims that were made by witnesses on April 11, they argue there's a possibility that anti-scab legislation will contribute to more strikes and to longer strikes. However, when we look at the data historically, I find very little evidence to support this claim.

In 1977, when the Quebec government passed this legislation, strikes did indeed go up slightly, but from the 1980s until last year, they fell precipitously. This struck me when I was looking at strike data over the weekend.

The 2023 numbers were recently released. In 2023, Quebec went through a historic number of strikes, but it would be hard to make the argument that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Professor Smith.

I'm going to keep everybody to their timelines so we can get everybody in.

Now we have Mr. Hancock for the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

You have five minutes or less.

[Mark Hancock, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to all the members of the committee.

My name is Mark Hancock, and I'm the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

CUPE represents more than 740,000 frontline public service workers across the country. Over 30,000 CUPE members work in federally regulated industries, such as airlines, communications, public transportation, ports, cash transit and security, as well as in indigenous councils and services.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-58 and the urgent need for anti-scab legislation in Canada.

I want to sincerely thank the NDP and the Liberals for including this commitment in the supply and confidence agreement, and for supporting anti-scab legislation clearly and publicly.

I also want to thank the Bloc Québécois for its support.

I also want to thank all MPs of all political parties for the unanimous vote in favour of Bill C-58 at second reading.

Why is collective bargaining so important that it is a charter-protected right in this country and in many countries around the world? It's because it is the only tool that workers have to correct a fundamental power imbalance between them and their employers. It is this inequity that Bill C-58 aims to address because collective bargaining without a real right to strike is deeply flawed.

This bill will also correct a disproportionate advantage that employers currently have: the ability to lock out their unionized employees and replace them with non-union workers without restriction. This is a practice that allows for a collective dismissal during bargaining.

Right now, as we speak, two groups of CUPE members working under the federal jurisdiction are victims of this vicious tactic. The committee has already heard about them. They are the Quebec port workers, SCFP 2614, and the Videotron employees in Gatineau, SCFP 2815. Some of them are here today.

Longshore workers in Quebec have been locked out for 18 months. Our members are asking for a basic work-life balance because workers cannot ignore their family responsibilities to work extraordinary hours of overtime due to systemic understaffing. Meanwhile, untrained workers are coming in every day to work as scabs, putting the safety of operations and staff at risk.

Employees of Videotron working in Gatineau were locked out in October 2023. They are simply asking to keep their jobs in Canada. Videotron is circumventing their collective agreement protections by locking them out and contracting out their work overseas, where workers are mistreated with impunity and paid a fraction of what Videotron pays its employees in Canada.

While it is business as usual for these two employers, our members and their families are experiencing the devastating and real impacts of this fundamental power imbalance.

Bill C-58 is a step in the right direction to bring fairness to labour relations at the federal level by getting rid of scabs, but the bill has loopholes. We urge you all to consider our recommendations to make this legislation work more effectively.

First, proposed subsection 94(4) should be a prohibition on performing any struck work or locked-out work. Exceptions should be limited to preventing imminent danger to the health and safety of the public or to the environment, or the threat of destruction to the workplace.

Second, the enforcement mechanism should include workplace investigations, as in Quebec. Investigations already exist in the Canada Labour Code for health and safety and labour standards, so it would be easy to replicate.

Third, the prohibition on using scabs should come into force immediately when the bill is adopted. There is no reason to delay the implementation of proposed subsection 94(4). The CIRB already has the authority to issue orders for unfair labour practices, and there is no need for further regulations there.

Finally, I have a few words on essential services. We heard business representatives talk about expanding the definition of essential services to include different types of economic disruptions, but that's what strikes are about: disruption.

As I said before, because it seeks to address a fundamental inequality, the right to strike is a charter-protected right. That means any limit to striking activity must comply with charter guarantees. If essential services are guaranteed to include economic disruption, this restriction on the right to strike will be unconstitutional.

You know that our members will not remain silent when our fundamental rights are attacked. Just ask Premier Ford.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Ms. Hokiro, you have five minutes or less.