Human Resources Committee on April 15th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Sheehan.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really want to thank all our witnesses, and you too, Professor Smith. I thought I heard that you were responsible for essential services at home.

I want to commend you for the important work you are all doing.

I'm going to go to Mr. Hancock. I was, in a way, privileged to go on the picket line at the Port of Québec and to speak with their local representatives. I was deeply moved by what I was told about the situation, after the 18-month dispute, regarding the workers' current mental health and the health and safety issues, particularly as a result of replacement workers. I apologize for saying this, but replacement workers don't care at all about industrial health and safety rules or standards, and that results in damage to equipment. But nobody talks about that. This shows both that employees don't choose to be locked out and that they choose even less to be replaced, considering the ensuing consequences.

Would you please tell us more about why the act needs to be amended to prevent these kinds of situations?

[Mark Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. I touched on that in my earlier answer.

We're Canada's largest union, with 740,000 members. We have locals with as many as 30,000 members working for the City of Toronto, and we have very small locals as well. It's not exclusively a big-local or small-local issue when workers go on strike or are locked out.

I can tell you that in every single case I'm aware of—and I've been national president for eight years now—workers have always had the goal of getting a collective agreement that works. Nobody wants to go home and tell their families that their lives are about to be disrupted because a strike is coming or, even worse, an employer is locking them out. Strike pay is not nearly what wages are. There are huge impacts. You talked about the port of Quebec. I've been there visiting members on a number of occasions. It has a real toll.

I haven't heard today—maybe somebody touched on it a bit earlier—about that relationship. Every strike and lockout will come to an end. We heard about the long strike a bit earlier today, but they all end at some point. What happens when a strike ends and workers need to go back to work for the employer who has locked them out or used scabs? It's pretty hard for those workers to go back to that type of company or workplace and pretend that life goes on as usual. Those are some of the real damages that scabs have in workplaces.

I hope I answered your question.

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

You pointed out a number of deficiencies in the bill. I think you're speaking for many labour organizations when you say that, if the aim is to uphold the right to strike and prevent the use of replacement workers, we should prevent the bill from permitting that indirectly. As I understand it, one of the flaws that you're pointing out concerns all the personnel that could be used on an exceptional basis in the event of a strike or lockout.

Ms. Hokiro, you represent some workers at Telus. I know this is off-topic, but we know that alarm bells are going off in the Canadian government over the decline in the number of good jobs for workers in Quebec and Canada as the company delocalizes those jobs outside the country.

I imagine the same situation occurs during a strike or lockout in the telecommunications sector, as is the case at Vidéotron, when a company delocalizes out all jobs and brings in replacement workers.

Do you think that should be prohibited?

[Donna Hokiro]

I'm going to be very blunt here. In 2005, when we were locked out, Telus turned on their first overseas call centre. We have video footage of it. Telus said they were only doing it to give the folks onshore a break, because they'd locked out their employees. However, the truth of the matter is that there are more and more offshore centres.

We are actually in a very precarious position. Since then, there has been no ability to have a proper strike, even if our members want one. This is because, as the sister in the panel before us said, there is no balance. There just isn't. We can only withhold our labour, but if withholding our labour means someone else is going to do it, there is no balance. We have nothing. Worse yet, it's not even done by Canadians.

It is so precarious. It's not feasible. We'll lose our whole industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here and taking part in this important study on a bill that is historical but that can also be improved.

The 18-month lockout at the Port of Québec is really a disgrace. I also had a chance to walk the picket line there, and it was difficult to watch the replacement workers drive in to do the work of the members who were locked out.

Some members of the Videotron employees' union are here today as well. I'm somewhat amazed at the fact that they aren't here just to improve their working conditions but also to keep their jobs because jobs across the entire telecommunication sector are threatened by delocalization. We have to talk about that.

I obviously agree that no one should ever cross a picket line. However, the Quebec and British Columbia acts provide for exceptions.

Under this bill, subcontractors hired before the notice to bargain is sent may continue doing their jobs in the same manner, to the same extent and in the same circumstances as they previously did. Consequently, if a person watered plants for 10 hours a week, that person must continue watering plants for 10 hours a week. That person may not be asked to make telephone calls or maintain computers. However, as you noted, Mr. Hancock, the Canadian Industrial Relations Board must have the resources and means it needs to conduct investigations on the ground to verify whether the act is being complied with.

I would like to hear what both of you have to say about that, but also about what happens in cases where subcontractors are brought in from outside the country, which is increasingly common in the telecommunications field. Doesn't that trouble you, in addition to the use of subcontractors itself?

[Donna Hokiro]

On the worry, I don't even think I quite have words, frankly. I'm a worker who was locked out in 2005, and I have bargained against Telus since then once I became president. There's not much of a hammer, quite frankly. Unions typically want to “rah-rah” their members and say no to concessions, but honestly, that's all we ever take, and we have no choice because not only will we be replaced by scabs, but they will probably not ever have us back.

As Brother Hancock said, there's going to be a resolution at the end, but when you have the ability to offshore everything, I don't know that there will ever be a resolution. That hurts all of our constituents across the country and that hurts our economies and our communities. It hurts all Canadians—it just does. There's no coming back from it.

We need this legislation and it needs to be fixed as soon as possible.

[Annick Desjardins]

I will add that people from Videotron could tell you about the work that's being done outdoors during the dispute.

Delocalization is definitely a much bigger problem than the anti-scab bill because we can't put the burden of protecting employment in Canada on workers' shoulders. Once they've summoned all their courage and decided to stand up to their employer, this bill must not permit the use of subcontractors. If they're working outside, we can't know if the amount of work being done is increasing or not.

We have recommended that existing subcontractors not be permitted to continue working during a strike or lockout precisely because employers may plan to increase their subcontracting volume before the notice to bargain is given.

As for inspections, we think it's important to have access to information so that we can have the evidence we need to pursue remedies. Quebec has an inspection system that we think works well and that should have been incorporated in the Canada Labour Code. It appears in parts II and III, but it could also be included in part 1.

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

Since you represent members of the telecommunications sector, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees also represents many people in that same sector, I want to ask you this: When the federal government grants tax credits or makes investments in telecommunications infrastructure, through grants, for example, shouldn't guarantees of continued employment be provided to prevent job delocalization?

[Donna Hokiro]

Yes, one hundred per cent. During COVID, most of the telcos received all kinds of what I'll call bonuses, but in the meantime, they were doing things that were not very conducive to helping workers. We should really be tying government contracts to jobs in Canada, jobs in everybody's community. That's not the point of this bill exactly, but it is hugely problematic when our government lifts up companies that just pay companies to get rid of our jobs. It's not helpful at all.

[Mark Hancock]

Part of the problem here is free trade, but I don't have time to get into that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Hancock]

Fundamentally, what our government and representatives are here to do is make sure that all Canadians have a standard of living that supports their families. I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

We'll only get at most to one and a half questioners. We started at 3:30, so we'll now go to Mrs. Gray for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the first meeting on this bill, this committee heard from Chris Aylward from PSAC. I want to hear your thoughts, Mr. Hancock, on a comment he made in reference to outside consultants and contractors. He said, “any time you go outside and do any kind of contracting out and you're not consulting with the people performing the duties, then it's going to be a disaster.” These are his words. He also said, “Studies have shown time after time that contracting out public sector work costs more money, doesn't come in on time and is done more poorly. That's what we advocate for. Keep it in-house.”

Do you have any comments on that? Would you agree, and do you have similar thoughts?

[Mark Hancock]

We have collective agreements with employers across this country, over 4,000 of them. In some of those cases, consultants or contractors are utilized. Generally, they're in places where there may be a unique skill set that's needed for a short period of time, like piledriving—things that members of CUPE wouldn't necessarily have.

Study after study has shown that contracting out definitely costs more. It's not as beneficial for taxpayers. I don't see them in the same vein as scabs, though. Scabs are definitely at a level of their own, and only superseded by employers who will use scabs.

Generally, I would agree with my friend Chris's statements.

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

One of the other things you mentioned on that was these workers feeling undervalued when their skills aren't being used. Anxiety levels can rise when you're wondering if you're the next one whose skills won't be used.

Do you have similar thoughts on that?

[Mark Hancock]

Do you mean people are questioning their skills when contractors are brought in? Is that where you're going with this?

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

It's when outside consultants and contractors are brought in and the workers aren't asked their opinion about how the worker is going to be utilized.

[Mark Hancock]

Maybe it's a different issue with the federal government. I'm not sure.

What I can say is that we have workplaces and employers who try to contract out large amounts of work. We have many collective agreements across this country at all levels, in provincial and federal sectors, with provisions that give workers support and that say certain work can't be contracted out. Sometimes it's tied to employment levels: As long as everybody is working, some work can be contracted out.

If I'm a tradesperson and you bring in an outside tradesperson, I'm going to start to wonder why the employer is doing that. Is it simply a need, that they need more tradespeople? If so, why aren't they hiring more tradespeople in the workplace? Those types of questions would definitely come up.

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

That's great.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. I know many of you have sent in written testimony as well.

During the last few minutes of this committee meeting, I want to bring up an issue that's likely important to many families following today.

I'd like to move a motion, Mr. Chair. I will read it:

Given that:

a) the Liberal Government committed to creating the Canada Disability Benefit in 2020;

b) now, four years later, the Liberal Government has still not implemented the Canada Disability Benefit;

c) the Liberal Member of Parliament for Whitby, Ryan Turnbull, has resorted to writing an open letter to the leader of his own party, pleading for the benefit’s implementation, remarking that “Canadians with disabilities have waited long enough”; and

d) this letter has been signed by Liberal members of this committee, including the Member of Parliament for Don Valley East, Michael Coteau; the Member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay, Wayne Long; and the Member of Parliament for Newmarket—Aurora, Tony Van Bynen;

the committee recognize the Liberal Government’s broken promises to Canadians with a disability who would qualify for this benefit.

To speak to this briefly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The motion is in order to be moved, and I want to advise the witnesses that this is acceptable at the committee. We have to deal with Mrs. Gray's motion before we can return to the witnesses, and we are running out of time.

Mrs. Gray.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We know the Canada disability benefit was first announced in the 2020 throne speech, and the legislation wasn't tabled until June 2021. This legislation was Bill C-35, which died when the Prime Minister called the 2021 election. A second bill, Bill C-22, wasn't tabled until June 2022. In October 2022, the minister told this committee that she expected it to take 12 months to develop the regulations, with an early 2024 target for publication. We know that commitment timeline has come and gone.

Canadians living with disabilities don't know if they're eligible. They don't know how they're going to apply. They don't know what they'll receive. They don't know how they'll receive it, when they'll receive it, how it will interact with provincial programs or if clawbacks will be triggered. The Liberals have broken their promises.

I bring this up because we are on the precipice of budget 2024, and people living with disabilities and their families deserve these answers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

I have Mr. Fragiskatos, then Mr. Coteau online and Madam Chabot.