Human Resources Committee on May 2nd, 2024

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

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, committee members. We will begin.

The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum. Everybody is appearing in the committee room, so we did not require any sound testing.

I will remind you before we begin about the steps that have been advised that committee members must take to avoid sound issues for the translators. Please keep your earpiece in the allotted spot when you're not using it. If you're not going to use it at all, it is best to keep it unplugged.

As you know, the room layouts have been adjusted to give more spacing to avoid any possible sound issues. Again, keep your earpiece on the allotted location.

Today's meeting is taking place pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 22, 2024. The committee is beginning its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations.

Before I introduce departmental officials, I would advise members that you have the choice to speak in the official language of your choice. If translation services are interrupted, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while they are being clarified.

Appearing in the committee room today, from the Department of Employment and Social Development, are Zia Proulx, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workforce; Katherine Chan, senior policy analyst, workplace and labour relations policy division; and Ryan Cowling, manager, workplace and labour relations policy division. They are here to address any questions the committee members may have related to the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

With that, again, thank you, members.

I apologize; somebody forgot to order breakfast, or we didn't pay for the last one and we're not getting any more. It will be corrected. Ms. Gray has agreed to pay for it if we can't find the funds.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

On a serious note, this is a serious piece of legislation, so I will begin going through it, as you are all familiar with the process of clause-by-clause study. If you have any comments, please raise your hand.

We shall begin with clause 1 of the bill.

There were no amendments submitted to clauses 1 through 5.

(Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 6)

On clause 6, the first amendment is from the NDP.

Mr. Boulerice, do you wish to speak to your amendment?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am extremely happy to be here with you today for the important consideration of what could be described as a historic bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Excuse me. Just a moment, please.

All right. Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope the interpretation is working and everyone can hear me.

A number of witnesses talked about the Canada Industrial Relations Board's 90-day decision-making time. They asked us to reduce the time to 45 days.

Amendment NDP‑1 therefore reflects that desire, in a nutshell.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mr. Sheehan.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I just wanted to point out that I have a subamendment to the amendment, Chair, if you can point out when it would be appropriate for me to move that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have the amendment from Mr. Boulerice on the floor under debate and we have a subamendment to that amendment.

We'll go to Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Seeback and then Madame Chabot.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

On the subamendment, we had originally chosen 90 days to ensure that this process did not infringe on the right to strike. Most of the time it takes more than 90 days to be in a strike position.

During committee, we heard from unions that the maintenance of activities process could delay their right to strike. We listened, we did the math and in good faith we're proposing a subamendment to reduce the CIRB's decision-making timeline to 82 days. That's why we're bringing forward a subamendment to reduce the CIRB decision-making time on maintenance of activities issues to no less than 82 days. That really is the shortest possible time we could see for a union get to the strike position. Therefore, it will not delay a union's right to strike.

With this change, unions that respect the timelines laid out in the bill will not see their right to strike delayed a single day, even if the CIRB takes the full 82 days to make a decision.

Further, we heard in testimony that it was currently 155 days. We were proposing 90. We're proposing 82 after extensive dialogue to make sure that the CIRB can get the job done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Sheehan.

The discussion now moves to the subamendment of Mr. Sheehan.

Go ahead, Mr. Seeback.

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

He explained it. I was going to ask the analysts, but I don't need to now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot, go ahead on the subamendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is correct to say that we listened carefully to the unions. A majority of them, including the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, the United Steelworkers, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, were very clear about the importance of reducing the time from 90 to 45 days to make sure their right to strike is preserved within a reasonable time.

I am therefore going to oppose this subamendment, which does not reflect the requests made. It reduces the time from 90 to 82 days, that is, by only eight days. In my opinion, it needs to be reduced to 45 days, and we can do that.

If there is a genuine desire not to interfere with employees' right to strike, we cannot preserve the 90-day time. Ninety days is unreasonable, as 82 days would be. That is why I oppose the subamendment and support the amendment proposed by the NDP, which is identical to Bloc Québécois amendment BQ‑1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any further discussion on the subamendment?

Mr. Sheehan, go ahead.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I want to point out again that testimony and a lot of the questions that were being asked to the particular board by various committee members stressed the need for more time and more resources. We're committed to getting resources to them. Making it 82 days will put them in a position, as this rolls out, to be able to deal with this expeditiously and to keep everything in accordance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Seeing no further discussion, I'm going to call for a recorded vote on the subamendment, as proposed by Mr. Sheehan, to the NDP amendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on amendment NDP-1 as amended.

If the committee decision on NDP-1 as amended is to carry it, then the amendment by Madame Chabot is non-debatable.

Seeing no discussion, I'm going to call a recorded vote on the amendment submitted by Mr. Boulerice, which has been amended by Mr. Sheehan.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 6 as amended carry?

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 7)

Shall clause 7 carry?

Mr. Sheehan, go ahead on clause 7.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I want to drop down the clause. I believe you have it. It is as follows:

That Bill C-58, in clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 4 with the following: “erence to any person.”

Unions raised an issue that in certain cases, replacements were brought in for emergency situations that might not be captured under the reinstatement provisions. This amendment resolves that issue.

I understand that the intent of NDP-9 was to fix the same issue, so this will make the amendment unnecessary. We're providing some needed clarification after consulting with various folks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. We have an amendment moved by Mr. Sheehan.

Mr. Seeback, go ahead.

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

I think it's really unfortunate that the government, which has all the resources available to it, has decided to drop a series of amendments on the day we're going through clause-by-clause study, which gives us absolutely no time to determine what the effect of these amendments will be. We all had lots of time to prepare for the NDP and the Bloc amendments, which they, demonstrating professionalism, put in on time.

Can any of the witnesses today comment on what the effect would be if this amendment were inserted in that clause?

[Zia Proulx, Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

I'll turn to my colleague Ryan Cowling, who can explain the impact of this amendment.

[Ryan Cowling, Manager, Workplace and Labour Relations Policy Division, Department of Employment and Social Development]

With this amendment, it would be a broadening of the reinstatement provision found at clause 7. That would amend section 87.6 of the code.

What it would essentially provide now, as amended, is that when striking or locked-out workers return to their jobs after the strike or lockout ends, they have preferential reinstatement over any other person who may have been performing any kind of work for the employer during the strike or lockout.

As section 87.6 had been written, there was a small chance that if the employer brought in new employees during a strike or lockout under those exception conditions that we have in the bill in proposed subsection 94(7), then they wouldn't be captured by that reinstatement. Thus, returning workers wouldn't necessarily be given preferential treatment over them.

This would be broader and capture those people as well. That's the change this amendment would make.

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

Who could these people possibly be?

I'm finding it hard to understand what the distinction is between “any person” and “any other person”.

[Ryan Cowling]

My understanding of the amendment is that it's removing the words “whose services were used contrary to subsection 94(4).” It's getting rid of that caveat and making it about any person.

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

No, it says “any person” now. Proposed section 87.6 says:

At the end of a strike or a lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer must reinstate employees in the bargaining unit who were on a strike or locked out, in preference to any person whose services were used contrary to subsection 94(4).

What's actually being added in is “preference to any other person whose services were used contrary to subsection 94(4).” That's how I understand this amendment.

I don't know what the difference is between “any person” and “any other person”. That's what I'm trying to understand.