Human Resources Committee on April 15th, 2024

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good afternoon, committee members. I will call the meeting to order.

The clerk has advised that we have a quorum and that those appearing virtually have been sound-tested and are good.

Welcome to meeting number 108 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually using Zoom.

I would like to make a few comments, primarily for the benefit of the witnesses who are new to us.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice.

In the room, interpretation services are available by using the headset and selecting the language of your choice. For those here virtually, please select the globe icon at the bottom of your screen to choose the language of your choice.

If there is a breakdown in interpretation services, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

For those in the room, please make sure your earpiece is not close to the microphone, because it will create popping, which can be harmful to the interpreters.

Please direct any questions you may have through the chair. To get my attention, please raise your hand. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon at the bottom of your screen.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 27, 2024, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

Appearing in the first hour today, we have, from Canada's Building Trades Unions, Sean Strickland, executive director; from Teamsters Canada, by video conference, Mariam Abou-Dib, executive director, government affairs; and from the United Steelworkers union, Nicolas Lapierre, assistant to the Quebec director, who is here in the room.

Welcome. Each of you will have five minutes or less for your opening statement.

We will begin with Mr. Strickland for five minutes.

[Sean Strickland, Executive Director, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Sean Strickland, and I serve as the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions. We are the national voice for over 600,000 skilled tradespeople in Canada who belong to 14 international unions and work in 60 occupations and trades.

I'm pleased to be here today along with my colleagues to advocate for speedy passage of Bill C-58, and remind this committee how critical this legislation is.

Banning replacement workers will protect workers' rights, prioritize the collective bargaining process and get workers back to the job. It will stabilize the bargaining process for federally regulated industries and positively impact almost a million workers.

When workers decide to withdraw their labour and strike, these decisions are not taken lightly. Generally, it's the last option after all other bargaining approaches have failed. Allowing the use of replacement workers—scabs—undermines the bargaining powers of workers in the negotiation process and removes the incentive for employers to avoid a strike or lockout. Strikes during which employers choose to hire replacement workers take longer to resolve, and that hurts families and communities.

We don't have to look back very far to understand the negative effects replacement workers can have on our workforce. In British Columbia, 238 workers attempted to bargain with LTS Global Solutions, a subsidiary of Ledcor, as a local established under the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 213. Since 2017, they had sought a collective agreement to improve working conditions, establish job security and secure fair wages. The majority of those workers were technicians, installing and repairing telecommunications equipment as contractors for Telus.

After union certification, the employer, LTS, refused to meet with the union for bargaining, and after two years without a collective agreement, the workers voted to go on strike. Rather than engaging in good-faith collective bargaining, LTS responded by bringing in replacement workers. As a result, the strike ended up lasting nearly six years, with the deal only occurring in June 2023.

It took a unanimous ruling from the Canada Industrial Relations Board to end it. Why? As telecommunications workers, they fell under federal labour laws. Unlike other workers in B.C., who were protected, there was no incentive for LTS to get back to the bargaining table because LTS could continue with business as usual, ignore its obligations to the unionized employees and use its considerable resources to drag the whole process through the courts for almost six long years. This has to change, as it has in some provinces.

Provincially, we've seen similar legislation successfully implemented in both B.C. and Quebec. British Columbia's labour relations code prohibits employers from using replacement workers, regardless of whether they're being paid to do the work. In Quebec, the labour code represents the most comprehensive ban on replacement workers. It covers almost all workers, except health care and public safety workers, and those sectors regulated by the Canada Labour Code.

Obviously, there's a gap between the Canada Labour Code and provincial labour codes. In B.C. and Quebec, that needs to be addressed for the benefit of all federally regulated workers. The success in both provinces amplifies how banning replacement workers protects workers' rights, improves collective bargaining and reduces the duration of strikes when they do occur.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I urge you to ensure speedy passage of this bill. Let's get this done for Canadian workers and their families.

I look forward to the discussion and your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Strickland.

We'll now go to Ms. Abou-Dib for five minutes.

[Mariam Abou-Dib, Executive Director, Government Affairs, Teamsters Canada]

Honourable members of this parliamentary committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you today on behalf of Teamsters Canada. As the executive director and on behalf of President François Laporte and 135,000 members across various sectors of the Canadian economy, I am here to present our views on the legislation aiming to prohibit replacement workers in federally regulated industries.

Teamsters Canada is Canada's transportation and supply chain union, representing workers in all modes of transport, including air, rail, road and many other sectors. Our organization is deeply committed to protecting the rights and interests of workers in Canada, which is fundamental to a healthy Canadian economy.

The practice of using replacement workers violates the rights of striking or locked-out workers, violates the rights of workers, compromises their dignity and autonomy in the workplace and undermines the collective bargaining process. It breeds resentment and frustration among workers and increases the likelihood of violence on picket lines. Moreover, allowing replacement workers exacerbates the power imbalance between workers and employers, leading to poorer working conditions for all workers in the long term.

The use of replacement workers in federally regulated sectors is a significant problem. According to Canada's labour program, replacement workers have been used in approximately 42% of strikes over the past 10 years.

Now is the time to reform our laws and truly protect the constitutional rights of workers in Canada to negotiate their working conditions collectively with employers and to withhold their labour as a last form of leverage in that process. I will remind the committee that Canada's Supreme Court has recognized strikes as an “indispensable component” of collective bargaining. Teamsters Canada also agrees with the International Labour Organization that replacement workers constitute “a serious violation of freedom of association”.

As with any type of legislation, the details matter tremendously. Although the current iteration of the bill is good, there are still areas where the language must be refined in order to avoid effectively creating loopholes for some employers. Our written submission acknowledges areas of the bill that we are particularly pleased with, such as not limiting the banning of replacement workers to an “establishment”, hence recognizing that today's material workplace is not what counts. Things have changed and the actual work is what counts in the context of replacement workers.

While we also believe there should be limited exceptions within the law in order to protect public health and public safety and to prevent significant damage to property, these exceptions should be well defined and subject to robust enforcement provisions to prevent abuse.

Enforcing a ban on replacement workers requires a comprehensive approach. We also recommend providing union representatives access to establishments when on strike or lockout for the purposes of monitoring and reporting any violations. Additionally, the government should establish a mechanism for expedited intervention to address non-compliance and ensure the effective enforcement of the ban.

Persistent and repeated procedural delays in the bargaining process are ultimately a threat to the rights of workers to bargain and strike. Any maintenance of activities process should not present any substantial delays to the bargaining process. In this regard, when there is no agreement, Bill C‑58 requires one of the parties to submit an application of referral to the CIRB for a ruling on the maintenance of essential services. We believe the submission should be automatic to reduce additional delays in granting the right to strike to workers.

On the coming into force of the law, Bill C‑58 states that this will take place 18 months after it receives royal assent. Our contention is that this timeline is excessive and unnecessary and that meaningful investments in the CIRB should be made as soon as possible in order to facilitate reducing this timeline to six months at the most.

We believe that a ban on replacement workers, if done effectively, will benefit working people and their families and will lead to improved labour relations and a more just distribution of the fruits of progress. We also believe this will contribute to shaping an economy in which we create not just more jobs but more good jobs, with fairness and dignity for those performing them.

The passing of this law comes at the right time. We are living in times when all political parties are seeking ways to protect and appeal to the middle class. Moreover, there has been a dangerous trend from certain provincial governments, which have been found by the courts to have flouted the rights of workers. We must set the bar higher and not risk turning back the clock on hard-won advancements for workers in this country.

In conclusion, adopting legislation to prohibit replacement workers in federally regulated sectors is a necessary step for protecting the rights of workers and promoting fair labour practices. It is crucial for governments to uphold the charter rights of workers by ensuring that the right to effectively strike is respected and not undermined by the use of replacement workers. By doing so, we can create a more equitable and just society for all Canadians.

Thank you for your attention. I'm open to any questions, and I look forward to further discussion on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Abou-Dib.

Mr. Lapierre, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Nicolas Lapierre, Assistant to the Quebec Director, United Steelworkers Union]

Good afternoon.

The Steelworkers Union represents 60,000 members who work in Quebec's private sector in various industries such as mining, logging, metallurgy, aluminum, various primary, secondary and tertiary processing plants, security, hotels, the restaurant industry, seniors residences, telecommunications, air, marine, rail and ground transportation, and many more.

My name is Nicolas Lapierre, and I am the assistant to the Quebec director of the Steelworkers Union.

Greetings to the Minister of Labour, Mr. O'Regan, the Liberal Party and all the opposition parties. Thanks especially to Ms. Chabot of the Bloc Québécois for this invitation. Lastly, hello to the members of the committee and to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity you have afforded us today. This is a very important moment for us.

I'm quite moved to be here today because our members believe in the political process and democracy and because this is where we change the laws and, to some degree, the world. I welcome your commitment to public service and your collaborative efforts to protect the middle class. In this era of cynicism toward politics, it is by passing foundational bills such as this one that you acquire the power to restore voters' trust. Although some amendments to this bill may be necessary, we welcome its introduction with considerable enthusiasm.

Our Canadian union, the Steelworkers Union, and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec have both submitted a brief. The Steelworkers Union obviously supports the recommendations made in those two submissions. I will be commenting solely on one recommendation in my remarks.

It is incomprehensible how any employer can be permitted to hire subcontractors, before a notice to bargain has been given, to do the work of members of an accreditation unit; in other words, to work as scabs during a strike or lockout. It's incomprehensible. We find it very hard to understand this idea, and it should be removed from the bill, not because it's more important, but because, on its face, it distorts the entire bill.

The Canada Labour Code provides for a strike and lockout mechanism only during a very specific period. Strikes and lockouts are permitted solely after a collective agreement has expired, whatever its term may be. Strikes and lockouts are prohibited during the term of a collective agreement, as is the case in many other countries. That's very important. Consequently, this is a key moment for both employer and union, and it's what should guarantee a balance between the parties.

How is a balance achieved between the parties? It's achieved by workers who forgo their pay in order to strike and employers who forgo revenue during a lockout. I can guarantee you that this encourages parties to agree; first of all, in order to avoid a dispute, and, second, possibly to negotiate as soon as possible to shorten the length of the dispute. This is done at the bargaining table, which makes it all the more important for the parties to talk to each other at the bargaining table. Bargaining is about give and take. Workers don't go on strike for fun; they forgo money for the sake of an ideal, whatever it may be.

Employers currently suffer no consequences under the Canada Labour Code when a labour dispute arises because they can hire scabs and continue operating their businesses as though there were no dispute. That completely disrupts the balance of power between the parties. The fact that the parties may suffer financial consequences encourages them to reach compromises and come to an agreement sooner. Since there's an imbalance under the present act, the union alone is forced to make concessions since it's the only affected party. This prolongs labour disputes.

Our brothers and sisters at the Port of Québec, stevedores represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, have been on strike for nearly 20 months. In 2022, our Steelworkers Union brothers working for Océan remorquage in Sorel were involved in a labour dispute for 9 months. Do you think those two employers suffered financially? Of course not. Their operations are running as usual, as scabs simply walk through the crowds in the picket lines.

My response to people who fear economic impacts is that we've had an anti-scab law in Quebec since 1977, and it hasn't hurt the economy in any way. On the contrary, as I said, it forces the parties to listen to each other. What's more, the disputes are shorter. The only reason why employers advance that argument is that they want to retain their undeniable advantage at the bargaining table.

I humbly repeat that Canadians expect this bill to be passed as soon as possible. We expect members of Parliament to work for all workers in a non-partisan manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Lapierre.

Now we'll begin the first round of questioning with Mrs. Gray for six minutes.

Mrs. Gray.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

One element this bill is seeking to do is amend the maintenance of activities process to “encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout”.

I'd like to ask all of the witnesses the same question. Based on your experience, what sorts of impediments typically arise on your end when identifying what those essential activities might be?

Maybe we'll go first to Canada's Building Trades Unions.

[Sean Strickland]

I think part of the challenge is when you allow exceptions for replacement workers. Where do you find that line with respect to what work is in the national interest, for example? What work is necessarily involved for the maintenance of critical infrastructure?

I think the best way to resolve that situation is between the affected parties. There could be some broad definitions that we have to be careful about, but you would have to look at some ways the affected parties—that is, the union—would be in agreement to have any kind of replacement workers to maintain critical infrastructure.

In our history at Canada's Building Trades Unions, we have made some exceptions when we've been on strike, but those exceptions are rare.

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

Thank you.

I'll move over to Teamsters Canada.

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

Of course, I agree with Brother Strickland on the question of, first of all, coming to an agreement to identify who or what work is in fact deemed essential. Maintaining the exceptions within the realm of public safety, as we indicated them to be, and knowing what compromises health and safety are key to the determination.

The other thing is time. We should be in a position to determine—again, the union and the employer—what is essential within a very short and limited timeline. That determination should begin as soon as bargaining does, so we're not in a situation where delays exacerbate a strike or a situation at the negotiating table.

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

Thank you.

I'll go to the United Steelworkers union.

[Nicolas Lapierre]

I think that the key to success in knowing what essential services and exceptions should be maintained lies in having both parties, employer and union, involved at the bargaining table.

We regularly do this when we negotiate collective agreements. No one has any interest in leaving a business with defective heating, failing to conduct health and safety rounds or doing anything else that might endanger the survival of the business. Don't forget that there will be a follow-up after the negotiation, after the dispute. Generally speaking, the parties talk to each other so they can reach a settlement, and they agree on who they do and don't want to keep on the job.

If the parties can't reach an agreement, they may appeal to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to resolve the dispute. Consequently, the board must be adequately staffed. Having been involved in many negotiations in recent years, I know that parties often have to wait months to be heard before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

Resources must definitely be allocated in the event of a dispute, but you also have to trust in the parties in place. Everyone has an interest in having a business stay healthy and enjoy smooth sailing after a dispute is resolved.

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

That's great. Thank you very much.

To tie into that regarding the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the bill intends to encourage faster decision-making. I want to ask, based on your experience, what typically causes delays in their decision-making process.

I have only a minute, so maybe we can have some quick answers. We'll go first to Canada's Building Trades Unions.

[Sean Strickland]

I think it's just a delay of process and the willingness of a company who's using replacement workers to continue along that process as long as they possibly can.

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

I'll go over to Teamsters Canada.

[Mariam Abou-Dib]

I think in addition to that, there's an insufficiently resourced CIRB, so ensuring that you have adequate resources to deal with the questions in a timely fashion is very important.

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

Last I'll go to the United Steelworkers union.

[Nicolas Lapierre]

I agree with my sister: An insufficiently resourced Canadian Industrial Relations Board is what slows down the whole process. For both sides, it can often happen before negotiations begin. We encourage this, but we still have to wait months before we're heard, which slows down the proper conduct of negotiations. You ultimately have to be aware of that fact and allocate necessary resources in the event the parties don't agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

Mr. Long, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues and thank you to our witnesses.

It's extremely transformational and very important legislation that we're dealing with today. I am pleased to see the Conservatives asking some questions on the legislation. They have been avoiding talking about it. I am encouraged that they supported it to come to committee. Let's hope they continue to show support for unions.

Last week—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

It's funny that you have a question about it.

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

Last week, we heard some representatives, CFIB and others, including Conservative MPs, state that this type of legislation increases the length of strikes and is a disruption to supply chains. However, we have also heard testimony that contradicts this view, with examples of how the use of replacement workers has caused longer strikes.

Mr. Strickland, Arlene Dunn, a good friend of both of ours, who was a previous executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions, says hello. She's in my riding in Saint John.

Can you speak on the record about how replacement workers undermine the constructive settlement of disputes?

[Sean Strickland]

I think my opening comments gave a very good example of how replacement workers prolonged a job action in British Columbia for up to six years. It's concerning when an employer can drag out a process for that length of time through legal proceedings and through delays at the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

I think the whole idea of using replacement workers undermines the collective bargaining process, which is duly constituted under the laws of each province. The fact that an employer is able to use replacement workers is in contravention of the whole purpose of the collective bargaining regime in the first place. I think it's critically important that we put this into place.

There is strong evidence from various professors at schools across Canada indicating that the length of a strike is shortened when you're not allowed to use replacement workers. Common sense would dictate that this would be the case. If your work as an employer is not disrupted because you're able to bring in replacement workers, even though you're trying to negotiate with someone, where's the motivation to get back to the negotiating table? It makes sense that the length of strikes is shortened, and there's evidence to prove that.

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

There has also been a lot of talk at times, through this study, that unions want to go on strike and it's their first choice. Can you speak to that?