When I was first elected to the Hamilton city council in 1995, Premier Harris, the premier of the day, had his common-sense Conservative...common-sense revolution playbook that targeted public sector employees, and at the time, thousands of unionized public sector employees took to the streets because they were the target of government policies trying to erode some of the gains unionized members here in the province of Ontario had made over a course of decades.

I watched that with interest. Coming from the city of Hamilton, I know the importance of unions and what they do on behalf of their membership over a period of time and how hard they fight to secure some of the benefits and the gains that their members, in some cases, have fought decades for.

I watched with interest when common-sense Conservatives targeted unionized employees in the 1990s. That was overturned with a Liberal government, and those policies were reversed, thankfully. Then I watched, still as a city councillor, Prime Minister Harper with two pieces of legislation that again targeted unionized employees with bills C-377 and C-525.

It wasn't too long ago here in my province that Conservative Premier Ford targeted nurses and educators with a bill that was challenged in the courts. It was a bill he passed that undermined a collective bargaining process, imposing 1% caps on teachers, nurses and other public sector employees for a period of three years. Of course, the courts shot that down, thankfully, and reversed that legislation. The province is now in the process of paying tens of millions, if not billions, of dollars for that mistake.

I give you those as instances when governments—they all seem to come from the same party—attacked and demonized unionized workers by trying to paint a picture of them for the public as expensive and by saying they stand in the way of progress and that there is no benefit to the rights that they've secured.

In the legislation, whether I go back to Premier Harris or Premier Ford or Prime Minister Harper, the playbook from common-sense Conservatives seems to be the same, which is to try to chip away and erode the benefits and the pay packages that have been secured over a period of decades by union membership and by union leadership over that same period.

When legislation is presented and those public debates happen and you and/or your members are demonized by a level of government, what does that do to morale? What does that do to the leaders who have fought very hard for these benefits?

I know I've given you some examples that are out of province, but I think over the years you've probably followed some of these same stories.

12:50 p.m.

Economist, Centrale des syndicats du Québec

Pierre-Antoine Harvey

Thank you for the question, Mr. Collins.

I'll answer indirectly. First of all, one of my roles at the Centrale des syndicats du Québec is to take part in negotiations with Quebec's public sector, so I was at the bargaining table during the last round to negotiate the wage conditions of 600,000 workers in the health, education and college networks.

In negotiations, regardless of the government's stripe, it seems that public sector workers always cost too much. It's something we hear from all sides. Indeed, we're presented as accounting for 60% of public spending, which isn't surprising, given that government services are services, not products. So it's only natural that labour accounts for the lion's share of these expenditures. It remains just as difficult for our members to be properly recognized at the table, no matter the government. This is particularly the case when it comes to female-dominated jobs, such as those designed to meet care, education and support needs. These are vocations that have never been recognized for their true worth.

What's more damaging, however, is the attack on the structure of debate, negotiation and collective representation of these workers. It adds a burden to the unions and their members. I'm not talking about formal negotiations, where the employer wants to pay less and the unions are asking for pay increases, which is a normal debate. When you attack unions' ability to represent their members, for example with legislation, it makes it more complicated to improve working conditions in the public sector—

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Ms. Chabot, you have two and a half minutes.

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Harvey, I always talk too much, but I have to say that here at the federal level, there are examples of labour legislation that should be corrected. You talked about contract flipping and gave some examples. This affects Air Canada maintenance technicians, among others. You can switch subcontractors and rehire the same employees, who lose all their rights and are given $10 an hour less. That's just plain rude. The laws need to be changed.

It's the same thing in the telecommunications sector. Right now, we're seeing attacks that are reducing union representation because good jobs in Quebec and Canada are being relocated abroad. We're seeing it at Telus and at Videotron. This is the kind of thing we should really be addressing.

We know the merits and benefits of unionization. It's fortunate that fisheries workers are unionized, because I can't even imagine what conditions they would work under if they weren't.

The CSQ led an important fight that contributed to the unionization of home-based child care educators. Has this had an effect on other female workers in the same field who aren't unionized?

12:55 p.m.

Economist, Centrale des syndicats du Québec

Pierre-Antoine Harvey

Yes, the unionization of home-based child care educators has led to wage increases or wage catch-ups. Their wages have nearly doubled over a 20-year period, following successive rounds of negotiations. In the last cycle, there was a 30% wage adjustment and a recognition of the expenses related to their child care services.

Following that, the Government of Quebec put in place policies that set basic compensation for all workers in the sector. So this is a government policy that applies to all these workers, somewhat like a collective agreement decree, but which was won by the union members. The case of family educators is an interesting case of non-traditional unionization that should inspire us.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Ms. Chabot and Mr. Harvey.

We go to Madame Zarrillo for two and a half minutes to conclude the questioning.

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thanks, Chair.

What fantastic witnesses we have had today. There has been so much insight. I just want to thank them so much.

I also just wanted to echo the fantastic comments that Madame Chabot made about contract flipping.

Mr. Chair, we heard today in committee of the detrimental impact that contract flipping has on workers. We must, as parliamentarians, do what we can to protect workers from this. This committee can address a current loophole in the Canada Labour Code right now in relation to contract flipping for airport workers. There is a Unifor campaign called the Air Transportation Workers’ Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have nine tangible asks. One is protection from contracting out. I have a motion, Mr. Chair, in relation to the testimony today:

That in the opinion of the committee the Canadian Labour Code be amended to close a loophole that annuls existing labour contracts or collective agreements when there is a change of employer for subcontractors working at Canadian airports by implementing amendments outlined in NDP C-330, titled An Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (successor rights and obligations—airports), and that the committee report this to the House.

The clerk has that in both official languages to send out to the committee.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

It's time.

Madam Zarrillo, we'll deal with this at a subsequent meeting, because we are out of time and there wasn't notice.

1 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Chair, it didn't have to be on notice. It relates to the discussion today.

1 p.m.