Human Resources Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Ginette Brazeau]

The board looks at complaints and requests submitted to us. If we receive a request regarding replacement workers, we have fairly broad investigative powers. We have officers in the regions to whom we can delegate the authority to gather information or evidence in the field, in the workplace, that can then be presented to the board and that the parties can rely on to make their views known.

So our powers already include an investigative component. However, if Bill C‑58 passes, we're thinking about how we could use those powers more broadly or differently compared to what we're doing now.

I should point out that we do this kind of investigation in response to a complaint. So there has to be a complaint at the outset.

However, if you're referring to the department's investigative powers, I must say that we already have a model for health, safety and labour standards whereby the department conducts an investigation and the files on which an appeal is based are then forwarded to the board.

I think that would be an additional step in the process.

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

In my experience and that of the labour movement as a whole, there's a difference between passing a bill and having it come into force. It's very dangerous to have bills come into force 18 months after they receive royal assent, especially in the current political context, where we have a minority government.

We've fought for years to get provisions like these passed, and the minister continues to tell us that he opted for the 18-month waiting period based on guidance from the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Is that right?

[Ginette Brazeau]

As I explained, we asked for some time to be able to put certain regulations in place—

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

I'm talking about the bill coming into force 18 months after it receives royal assent.

[Ginette Brazeau]

Yes.

We asked for a period of time to help us to get organized and put the regulations in place. Could we do it faster? Maybe we could, but we still need the necessary resources to implement things without messing up our process or prolonging our processing times for other types of cases.

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

Under current processing times, it often takes more than 90 days for a decision to be rendered. That's already a very long time. As you know, it's like a cooling-off period. That's what gives people the right to seek recourse.

Many are calling for a shorter decision time, furthermore, for an interim order to be made if the board is unable to render a decision in time.

Can you confirm that it would be preferable to render decisions faster?

[Ginette Brazeau]

Are you talking about the 90-day period?

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

Yes, I'm talking about the time frame for decisions to be rendered.

[Ginette Brazeau]

As I said, it will be a challenge to meet that 90-day deadline. We will need the necessary resources to implement the bill and process those cases when we receive them. I'm talking about both decision makers and officers in the field who work with us. It's an outstanding team. We currently have 18 officers in the field, as well as five full-time vice-chairs and three part-time vice-chairs. However, if we're talking about 1,000 cases a year, that's hard to do. That's 170 cases a year for each decision maker.

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

From what I understand, as it stands right now—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Your time is up, Ms. Chabot.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll follow up on that after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

You may go ahead, Mr. Boulerice. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today as we study this important and historic bill.

I have a comment to start. Mr. Ghiz, your presentation was rather bold, if not provocative. You said that Bill C-58 sought to address a problem that did not exist. I take issue with that.

The dockworkers at the Quebec City port have been locked out for the past 18 months, and every day, they see people taking their jobs and pay. Situations like that aren't limited to ports. They also happen in telecommunications. Sitting behind you, Mr. Ghiz, are four Videotron employees who have been locked out for nearly six months in Gatineau, and replacement workers have been brought in to do their jobs. This is a real problem. In fact, I kindly encourage you to go up to them after the meeting, to talk to them about their situation and find out what the labour dispute is like for them. They have been out on the street for nearly six months.

Ms. Brazeau, you said you couldn't presume what Parliament would decide with respect to the bill. I agree, but since all parties in the House voted in favour of Bill C-58 at second reading, it will probably end up being passed, unless the tide turns and things change significantly.

Is the Canada Industrial Relations Board getting ready for the bill's potential passage?

[Ginette Brazeau]

We have indeed started consulting stakeholders, including Quebec's Administrative Labour Tribunal to draw lessons from its approach and practices vis-à-vis Quebec's anti-scab provisions. We've spent time with tribunal officials to understand the tribunal's process, and they provided us with written materials.

We are examining all of that information, as well as the powers that would be conferred upon the board under the bill. We are thinking about the process we'd like to put in place if the bill is passed. The answer to your question is yes, that work and thought process have begun.

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

Many witnesses have raised the issue of time frames with the committee, whether it's the 18 months until the bill would come into force or the 90 days the board would have to make its determination. A number of labour groups said that both time frames were a bit long, even too long. They'd like to see the process move a bit faster.

You just seemed to suggest that it would certainly be possible to shorten the 18‑month coming-into-force time frame. What resources would you need in order for that to happen? I should say that your funding hasn't gone up much since 2019. What would you need to bring that 18‑month period down to eight, 10 or 12 months, say?

[Ginette Brazeau]

We would need a reasonable amount of time to put the rules and procedures in place. We would need time to consult with the stakeholders who use our services, as well as to train and educate the people who work at the board. We might be able to do it in six months, but our main concern is still resources. We would need to know that additional decision makers were being appointed and would be ready to deal with cases when they come to us.

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

Another recommendation we got was for the time frame to be zero months. Is that realistic?

[Ginette Brazeau]

I don't think that's realistic, no.

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

All right.

Now I'd like to discuss the 90‑day deadline for making a determination.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees recommended shortening the deadline to 45 days. Again, I gather it would come down to human resources. The union also recommended that, if a decision was not made within the time limit, the board issue an interim order at the request of the bargaining agent, meaning the union.

Would it be possible for the board to issue an interim order if it failed to meet the deadline prescribed by law, be it 45 or 90 days?

[Ginette Brazeau]

It would be possible, since the board already has the power to issue interim orders.

Now, what would be the basis for issuing that interim decision? If such a measure were introduced, I would suggest requiring each party to provide the board with a list of the services it feels should be maintained. That requirement could be included in the statute or made through regulation—I'm thinking aloud here. That way, we would have the employer's and the union's lists and could examine whether it would be possible to issue an interim order in a given case.

It would be possible, but as I said, I was just thinking aloud.

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

That's fine.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have another 45 seconds.

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

All right.

Ms. Brazeau, you said that, for eight months, you couldn't use external adjudicators. I find that a bit worrisome. Again, it's just a matter of resources. Certainly, delays like that must cause problems from a labour relations standpoint.

[Ginette Brazeau]

As I explained, in 2019, the chairperson gained the power to appoint external adjudicators to deal with the heavier caseload the board was experiencing, having been given responsibility for matters under parts II and III of the Canada Labour Code as well. It represented a significant amount of work, and $3.4 million was approved so we could do the work. As the chart shows, however, the funding wasn't available. For eight months, we weren't able to assign those files to external adjudicators, which led to longer wait times.