I'm Donna Hokiro, president of Local 1944 of the United Steelworkers. Our local union represents over 5,000 members across Canada, mostly federally regulated in the telecom sector.

Allow me to start with this: No one goes on strike for the fun of it—nobody. It's never a decision that union members take lightly. Arguably, it's the hardest.

Importantly, when the employer decides to lock out workers, they don't consult the union and they threaten the very livelihood of their workers—our members. Strikes and lockouts have always had significant impacts on workers. The use of scabs escalates an already difficult situation and has the potential to impact an entire community. It turns workers against each other, neighbours against neighbours and sometimes even members of the same family against each other.

Our local union has experienced such situations in the past. Familial brothers who both worked at Telus came to blows when one crossed the picket line while the other honoured it. This one act of scabbing by one of the real-life brothers affected their family, so much so that Christmas, birthdays, other holidays and special occasions could not be celebrated together. Countless relationships and friendships have never been restored.

This affects our members and your constituents. That's why we have been fighting for anti-scab legislation for decades.

Anti-scab legislation already exists in British Columbia and Quebec. It has been proven that bans on scabs reduce the number and length of labour disputes and restore the balance in collective bargaining. More importantly, it upholds workers' constitutional rights and leads to better working and living conditions. However, the bill before us falls short because it includes loopholes that could allow employers to bypass the ban and includes unnecessary delays that postpone workers' protection.

First, anyone performing the job of a worker on strike or lockout must be included in the ban, whenever they were hired. Of course, we accept exceptions for work necessary to prevent an imminent threat to life, health and safety, destruction of property or environmental damage, but we also submit that an agreement on who will perform conservation work must be reached between both the employer and the union and must not be decided by the employer alone.

Also, the waiting period for the CIRB to issue an interim or bottom line decision on the maintenance of activities needs to be cut from 90 to 45 days to ensure employers don't use delaying practices before workers can exercise their right to strike.

Importantly, we need to get rid of the current wording that gives scabs preferential reinstatement over existing employees after a labour dispute. That makes no sense.

Next, the labour code already defines “employee” to include dependent contractors. This exception needs to be removed to make it clear that they are not allowed to cross the picket line.

Finally, the delay before the implementation of this bill needs to be removed. The government needs to show they are serious about this law, and it must come into force before the next election to make it harder for the next government, whoever it may be, to repeal it before workers have had a chance to benefit from it.

I spoke of Telus earlier, but it's not just them. Rogers, having made big promises to the current government to ensure that the acquisition of Shaw closed smoothly, instead locked out 288 of my members in Vancouver and Surrey, British Columbia, before the ink was even dry on the approval. They brought workers in from other parts of Canada, telling them that they would be helping with extra work because of the merger.

Worse still, near the end of the lockout, the B.C. labour board ruled in favour of a provincially regulated contractor, allowing it to force its technicians—against their wishes—to cross our federal picket lines. This unfortunate loophole is being rectified by the provincial government in B.C.

Please ensure this new legislation respects any picket line, regardless of what jurisdiction it falls under. A picket line is a picket line is a picket line. For the sake of all federally regulated workers, we respectfully ask you to adopt these amendments and get Bill C-58 passed and implemented swiftly.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Ms. Hokiro.

Mr. Seeback, you have six minutes.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to the committee and I'm new to this study. I was going through and reading some of the testimony from before, and one thing that jumped out at me was what Lana Payne said when she was here. She said, “No country has achieved shared progress and prosperity for working people without strong unions and strong collective bargaining laws.” I'm assuming everyone here agrees with that. I want to say that I agree with that one hundred per cent as well.

I told the previous panel a personal story. My son works in the construction industry. He worked for two private companies. Of course, he was treated well. Now he works for a large company in a union and his life is incredibly better. His pay is better. Safety is better. The benefits and opportunities are better. His life has dramatically improved because he is in a union.

I fundamentally believe that unions create better-paying jobs for Canadians. That's what I want to come to with my questions on this bill. I want everyone to know that.

When I look at the bill, one thing I look at is the section on fines when there is an offence. Clause 12 of Bill C-58 would add a new section, 101.1, to the CLC to establish that if an employer contravenes the rules on the prohibited use of replacement workers, there could be a $100,000 fine “for each day during which the offence is committed or continued.”

Taking out how long these things might take to be deliberated upon, do you think that fine is sufficient? Where do you folks stand on that?

Everyone can take a turn answering.

4:55 p.m.

National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Mark Hancock

There's definitely a union advantage. I'm glad your son is enjoying that. My kids have both also had union jobs and definitely experienced much better conditions when they worked in those environments.

With respect to fines, I have no problem with them being higher at all. When we use unions and do something that an employer does not think is right, it doesn't take long for the employer to take us to whichever labour board it may be—provincial or federal—and the threats of fines are significant. You may recall we had a significant job action in Ontario with education workers and with Premier Ford. I think it was about a billion dollars that we were going to be fined in the first week.

I think stronger fines against employers would be very helpful in levelling the playing field.

5 p.m.

President, United Steelworkers Local 1944

Donna Hokiro

Thank you for your question. I appreciate it.

Back in 2005 when we were locked out by Telus, instead of meeting all of our demands, they opted to pay, we estimate, over three times the cost for scab labour. They certainly can afford and have the ability to pay. I would just throw out there that when we're locked out and there is no consequence, there is indeed anti-union animus and it goes against the charter, quite frankly.

I agree with my brother here that the higher, the better. I would also say it's quite illegal when you go against the charter. We should all be offended.

Indeed, I think the higher the better. I approve.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Thanks very much.

One thing that left me sort of scratching my head when I looked at the legislation is that there doesn't seem to be a good definition of what a contractor is versus a dependent contractor. I think that falls into one of the loopholes that everyone is talking about today.

Do you think “dependent contractor” has been redefined effectively in Bill C-58 for the CLC? If not, what would you do to make that definition better?

Does anyone want to take a stab at that?

5 p.m.

President, United Steelworkers Local 1944

Donna Hokiro

Having not heard from independent Smith, maybe he'd like to start.

5 p.m.

Associate Professor, Political Science, Saint Thomas More College, As an Individual

Charles Smith

I'm sorry. Did you want me to respond to the first question or the second one?

5 p.m.

Conservative

Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Respond to the second one, please.

5 p.m.

Associate Professor, Political Science, Saint Thomas More College, As an Individual

Charles Smith

My union and our work don't deal with independent contractors and dependent contractors, so I would defer to some of the union leaders who have dealt with this directly.

5 p.m.

Annick Desjardins Executive Assistant, National President's Office, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Our recommendation is to broaden the scope of the protection against scabs—against replacement workers. Dependent contractors are considered employees under the code, so that is not an issue here. The problem we have with the definition in the prohibition is that it allows for employers to continue working with their contractors during a strike. That's the problem we have.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

My final question is going to be for the United Steelworkers. I'm going to veer off slightly, but I hope you'll bear with me.

I also work on the international trade committee. We heard from steel producers that imports of steel have gone from 19% of the Canadian market in 2013 to 39% in 2022, mostly because of dumping from other countries.

Do you think it's really important, as this bill is important, that the government take some steps to revise how we deal with anti-dumping, which is taking away good union jobs from steelworkers across this country?

5 p.m.

President, United Steelworkers Local 1944

Donna Hokiro

Yes, certainly. Just to be clear, I am in the telecom sector, so I wouldn't be an expert on that, but I am an expert on being a worker. I come from the shop floor, for over 30 years.

Dumping absolutely takes jobs away from our steel sector, and, by the way, it makes a very poor product. It's unpatriotic, quite frankly. We should be very stern against any dumping, regardless of the logo on your pin, because it's anti-Canadian. There should always be jobs for Canadians first and steelworkers all the time. It's our work.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I couldn't agree with you more.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Next we have Mr. Sheehan for six minutes.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Last week, there were some questions for FETCO at the end of the meeting about claims that 911 or other emergency services may go down due to this legislation. I just want to be clear on that. Its March 12 communication entitled “The Urgent Need to Amend Bill C-58” says, “The absence of these workers during strikes could lead to severe disruptions, endangering everything from home heating and emergency communications to the delivery of life-saving medical supplies and the refueling of commercial aircraft.”

An emergency communication isn't explicitly 911. I'll point out that twice, on February 20 and February 21, FETCO shared an op-ed by Robin Guy that asserted, “during a strike replacement workers would not be able to fix problems. Customers in an affected area could be without even emergency services—including access to 911, be their need ambulance, fire department or police.”

As discussed, and it seems like our witnesses had agreed with me, not only would 911 services be protected by the maintenance of activities process, but Bill C-58 would actually improve this process to protect the health and safety of Canadians and prevent serious environmental or property damage.

I just wanted to clear that up, because we ran out of time as we were finishing.

My first question is for Professor Smith. We heard from FETCO and other corporate groups that raised concerns around Bill C-58 about how it might increase the frequency of strikes. In November 2023, you published an article in the Monitor entitled “Anti-scab legislation does not increase strikes, despite corporate propaganda”.

Professor, could you speak more about your findings after Quebec and B.C. tabled legislation banning the use of replacement workers? I noticed that you ran out of time.

April 15th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.

Associate Professor, Political Science, Saint Thomas More College, As an Individual

Charles Smith

My final thought in my presentation was that we saw the same trends in B.C., and I was going to end there.

Let's break it down. To understand the context about why strikes occur and why we see an increase or decrease in strikes, I'll note they cannot be correlated to one single legislative act or one single act.

In 1977, when the Government of Quebec introduced it's anti-scab bill, it did so for very specific reasons. The Quebec construction industry was notoriously complicated. There had been some serious strikes with some serious acts of violence. The government acted in a way to try to prevent that. While we saw an increase in strikes in the next two years, they started to decline—and declined precipitously. One reason for that was the structural change in the economy. We moved from the Keynesian welfare era to a different type of era where markets were more free and so on. We saw a decline in strikes, which ended up seeing fewer and fewer people in private sector unions.

We saw similar trends after 1993, when the government of Mike Harcourt introduced an anti-scab bill similar in context to that of the Quebec government. Actually, 1993, if we start there, is the high point for strikes. After that, they decline precipitously in British Columbia, and they have never been matched since then.

I don't see the evidence that one legislative act leads to more strikes or longer strikes. It's actually much more complicated than that, and I'm not convinced by the evidence in those briefs, Mr. Sheehan.

My final thought is on the issue of longer strikes. That's a bit more complicated, because we do see a few longer strikes after anti-scab legislation, but we see periods of shorter strikes as well. This would lead me to conclude that, again, it's context-specific. How do we understand that? We look at each specific strike and try to see what the issues are and what's happening on the ground.

To conclude, we know for sure that when anti-scab legislation is introduced, we see fewer incidents of violence on the picket line. I think that's an important policy objective of the Canadian government's industrial relations framework.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Then you would say, based on the data, that there's no correlation between strike activities by labour unions and legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers. There's no direct correlation to what has been stated. Is that correct?

5:05 p.m.

Associate Professor, Political Science, Saint Thomas More College, As an Individual

Charles Smith

Absolutely.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Thank you.

There's fearmongering out there, whether on Twitter or in statements. Along with 70 other labour experts and professors, you urged the government to adopt Bill C-58. You went on about what was happening with legislation in Quebec and British Columbia. I'm sure members from the NDP and the Bloc would agree that, again, there doesn't seem to be any kind of economic collapse happening as a result of it.

Could you expand on that fearmongering about economic collapse? As soon as a strike happens or appears it will happen, there are right-wing interventions that say it has to stop, sometimes even before it starts. Could you please comment on that?

Perhaps I'll let my union friends make a comment on that as well.

5:05 p.m.

Associate Professor, Political Science, Saint Thomas More College, As an Individual

Charles Smith

I would echo what Mr. Hancock said—

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON

I'm sorry, Professor. Maybe I'll let Mark go.

5:05 p.m.

Associate Professor, Political Science, Saint Thomas More College, As an Individual

Charles Smith

It's no problem.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Mr. Hancock.

5:05 p.m.

National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Mark Hancock

I'll be very quick.

There are no union members out there who want to strike. When they have a strike, they want to find a solution that works for them and their employers. That's the bottom line.

With 740,000 members, we have strikes. We have 2,100 local unions and 4,000 collective agreements, and a very small percentage end up on strike. That's because workers don't want to strike. They want to get a collective agreement that works for them.

On the numbers in 2023, I blame them on COVID. Workers were coming out of COVID. They were frustrated. We were seeing the cost of living skyrocket. That's what 2023 was about.