Human Resources Committee on Sept. 24th, 2024

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

I call the meeting to order.

Committee members, welcome again this morning.

Welcome to Madame Gladu, who is joining us this morning for today's meeting.

The clerk has advised me that all of the virtual witnesses have been sound-tested, and they have been approved.

We have a quorum.

Welcome to meeting number 124 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 House of Commons rules.

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

There's no interpretation, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

There's no translation.

How about now? The translators are giving me the thumbs-up.

Ms. Chabot, is it working now?

You have to be careful with the button you press.

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

They're far too complicated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, I agree. Anyhow, I've been given a quick crash course on how to use the mics.

Is it off again?

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

Perhaps it's a problem with interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll suspend for a moment while this is clarified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Thank you, committee members. We got the translation worked out.

Is that right, Madame Chabot?

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

Life is good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good.

As I was indicating, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. According to House of Commons procedures, witnesses and members can appear virtually. Today all the members are in the room. We have witnesses who are appearing virtually.

We have a couple of rules. You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation services are available through the mics. If you're appearing virtually, please click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the official language of your choice. If there is an interruption in translation, please get my attention by raising your hand in the room or by using the “raise hand” icon for those appearing virtually, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.

I would remind all members to wait until I recognize them before speaking. Again, to get my attention, simply raise your hand or use the “raise hand” icon.

I also want to remind members, with regard to all their devices, to please turn off any alarms that could go off routinely. There was an incident at our last meeting. This is for the protection of the interpreters. As well, please refrain from tapping on the microphone boom. It does cause sound issues for the interpreters, and we do not want to do that.

Before we go to the witnesses, I want to clarify something. At the conclusion of Tuesday's meeting, Ms. Zarrillo moved a motion at committee. The meeting adjourned before there was a clear direction on that particular motion.

I want to advise members on the motion that was moved by Ms. Zarrillo. There is a procedure for that, given that the motion that was introduced without 48 hours' notice was on the subject matter that the committee was studying, but the precedent on that is that it must be rather general. My interpretation was that the study was on unionized wages in general, in a broad category, versus non-unionized. The motion addressed a change to a specific item. Therefore, I would rule it as non-admissible at that time. Given that, the motion has now been on for 48 hours, so Ms. Zarrillo would have the ability to move it as she chooses.

I raise that because I just want to advise members that I will continue with that precedent decision on motions that may be introduced without a 48 hours' notice on a related study, given the fact that it doesn't kill the motion. The 48-hour rule is the one that's been accepted and used, and that's the one that will take priority.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, February 26, 2024, the committee resumes its study on compensation disparities between unionized and non-unionized workers in Canada.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses. We have Tristen Wybou, executive vice-president of the BC General Employees' Union, by video conference. From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president, and D.T. Cochrane, senior economist, by video conference. From the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers—District 140, we have Dan Janssen, general chairperson, who is with us in the room. From UA Local 663, we have Scott Archer, business agent.

We'll begin with Ms. Bruske.

Ms. Bruske, you have up to five minutes. The floor is yours, please.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you so much.

Greetings and good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Bea Bruske, and I am the president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

The CLC is the country's largest central labour body, bringing together more than 50 national and international unions. We represent more than three million working people in Canada.

The CLC will be providing a detailed written submission in the days ahead, but for the moment, here are my comments.

I've been a trade unionist my entire adult life, and I know from direct experience that unionized workers enjoy more rights, higher wages and better benefits, but the goal of unions is the advancement of all workers through a strong labour movement and through high union density. By forming unions and bargaining collectively, unions reduce the power imbalance in the workplace and in the broader economy. On their own, most workers are at a huge power disadvantage with their employer, but when they join together, workers can build solidarity and collective power, and that's the basis from which to negotiate with powerful corporations and employers.

By organizing, unions promote inclusion, equality and security, which reduces division, resentment and political instability. Unions are crucial for advancing rights for women, workers of colour, people living with disabilities, gig workers, migrant workers and other historically disadvantaged workers who have been excluded from accessing these rights. Workers gain effective access to important legal rights through their union and their collective agreement. That includes protection against discrimination in employment, promotion and layoff, and the right to grieve management's arbitrary decisions.

Make no mistake: Formal, statutory rights for workers for things like employment standards laws are vitally important, but too often they are weak, inaccessible and slow to adapt to changing work environments.

Without unions, employers are free to pocket 100% of the gains from productivity or to distribute them solely to shareholders. Unions demand that employers share a portion of productivity gains with workers, and they insist that firms redistribute portions of economic rents. Unions also compress wages within firms, bringing up wages at the bottom faster than compensation for top earners, thereby reducing inequality.

Unions also make work sites safer. A study from the Institute for Work and Health shows that unionized companies in Ontario's construction sector have significantly lower injury rates.

Unions help close wage and employment security gaps for the most precarious workers. For example, one in five early career workers is in a temporary position, but among these young temporary workers, those in the union earn 31% more per hour than their non-unionized counterparts.

Racialized workers face more challenges in the labour market. However, researchers with the Canadian Centre for Future Work found that the incomes of racialized workers in the union are more than $3,200 higher per year.

Regardless of whether they're employed in the private sector or the public sector, unionized workers are much more likely to have disability insurance, extended health coverage, maternity and parental leave top-ups and other benefits. Statistics Canada recently found that four in five unionized workers have access to a workplace pension, while just 36% of non-unionized workers do.

Unions lift wages and conditions for unionized employees, but also for non-unionized workers, and they do so through the “union threat” effect. Non-union employers commonly match the terms and conditions negotiated in unionized plants in a bid to fend off organizing drives and to stay non-union. Non-union employers match unionized employers to reduce recruitment and retention pressures that come from inferior wages and conditions.

Unions also work to generalize gains won through collective bargaining to the broader workforce. Paid sick leave and paid leave time for victims of domestic violence are very good recent examples. Before being enshrined in legislation, these protections were already negotiated in many collective agreements. Unions demand paid sick leave, paid domestic violence leave and affordable, high-quality child care for all workers in every province and territory, and we are still fighting that fight.

We know that unions don't benefit just members. The wages and benefits that unions negotiate strengthen local economies and fund high-quality public services. Unions are the leading providers of skills training and vocational education in Canada as well.

Internationally, countries with strong labour movements have greater wage equality and stronger social programs and public services. In Canada, more workers than ever want to access unions. We need all governments to remove barriers standing in the way of workers who want to access being part of a union. After all, the freedom to form unions and engage in collective bargaining is a charter right in Canada and is protected under international law.

Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Bruske.

Mr. Janssen, please go ahead for five minutes or less.

[Dan Janssen, General Chairperson, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - District 140]

I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to share my experiences as an airport worker on the need for better protections for workers subject to the RFP or request for proposals procurement process, referred to as contract flipping, and the need for living wages in aviation.

My name is Dan Janssen, general chairperson with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The IAMAW represents 40,000 workers in Canada. Our airport members perform work at Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat, Swissport, Menzies, and many other smaller service providers.

I'm a 24-year Air Canada employee, working below the wing. I got involved in my union after speaking up about safety issues at Toronto Pearson. I quickly realized that reporting safety issues and addressing them in a workplace as large as Pearson was very empowering.

I've been involved in the labour movement at Pearson for 13 years. I am a former co-leader of the Toronto airport workers council. I co-founded the Toronto Pearson worker health and safety forum, a groundbreaking workplace-wide safety committee. This safety model is being shared with other airports around the world by both the GTAA and the International Transport Workers' Federation. I've received an Eye on Safety award from the airport authority for improving safety culture, and I was involved with “$15 and fairness”, which helped 1.5 million workers when the Ontario minimum wage jumped to $14 per hour.

Aviation is a high union density sector, which has a positive effect on all workers, although workers employed by many service providers earn wages only slightly above or at minimum wage. Unionized workers enjoy the protections and values of having a contract in place. For non-union workers, wages may be comparable; however, some employers deduct the costs of benefits and parking, impacting their overall earnings.

One of my senior stewards, Francis, has worked for two decades at Pearson, providing wheelchair service to passengers. Because of contract flipping, he's had multiple employers and has had to start all over again each time the contract changed hands, except for the last time. That contract was awarded effective September 1, 2019, the same day successorship rights came into effect in the code. For the first time, Francis kept his 2015 seniority date and was able to make gains based on a portion of his previous experience.

There is a contract flip happening at Pearson right now. The GTAA has a tender out for baggage-handling work performed by IAMAW members at TBH services. This contract expires 28 days from today's date, on October 22, 2024, and there has been no confirmation about the successful bidder. Imagine not knowing whether, in 28 days, you will be working with your current employer or a new employer, or whether you will even have a job moving forward. TBH workers have expressed frustration with not knowing what will happen. Workers have literally broken down in my office due to the emotional toll the situation is causing.

The lack of a proper notice period is concerning and should be addressed by legislating that the RFP process provides no less than a 16-week requirement for notice of the successful bidder. This would align the timelines with the group termination provisions of the code.

MP Alexandre Boulerice's private member's bill, Bill C-330, would also be impactful. This would ensure that workers maintain the same collective agreement and union whether or not the employer changes. These protections should be enacted quickly by supporting this bill and passing it during the current session of the House. For TBH workers, whose bargaining agreement expires on October 31, Bill C-330 would provide peace of mind, knowing that their CBA is protected and their union will remain in place.

The GTAA released the Pearson standard in April 2023. Section 2.20.2 states:

Ensure that their employees have access to a safe working environment and earn a fair wage that allows them to afford adequate shelter, food, and other necessities.

Unfortunately, many service contract workers earning low wages struggle to afford the necessities.

The IAMAW is pushing for a living wage for all airport workers. A change.org living wage petition started by an IAMAW representative has nearly 9,900 signatures. I have an active House of Commons petition, e-5050, calling for an airport living wage. It is my understanding that the GTAA is lobbying the labour program and Transport Canada for an airport minimum wage. Airport workers deserve fair wages. Their work is essential to the safe operation of Canada's aviation transportation sector. They deserve a better minimum standard.

In conclusion, I am seeking help for my co-workers. Bill C-330 could pass in this session of the House. Legislation for an RFP notice period should align with the group termination provisions, and the minimum standard should be no less than living wages for all airport workers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Janssen.

Mr. Archer, go ahead for five minutes.

[Scott Archer, Business Agent, UA Local 663]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members.

I'm Scott Archer, business agent of UA Local 663, the pipefitters, plumbers and welders union in Sarnia, Ontario. I'm appearing today in place of my boss, friend and mentor, Brother Kayle McDonald, who is our business manager at Local 663. He is, regrettably, in the U.S. at present for a prior engagement, and not able to attend.

I'm here to represent our nearly 1,700 local members and the roughly 3,500 family members who depend upon them to provide a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. Additionally, we're part of the UA's Canadian membership, which is 53,000 strong. There are 370,000 members across North America.

To start, I'd like to express our thanks for being invited to speak here today and for being afforded the opportunity to have our voices heard.

First, I'd like to speak to the issue of wage disparity between union and non-union workers in this province. Unions, as you know, have long been the champion of the underdog and the source of a higher quality of life for working-class families.

This is not some new, mysterious process. It's achieved the same way it has been since the 1800s, and since the landmark Oshawa General Motors union movement of 1937, which was in fact spurred by the Sarnia Holmes Foundry labour movement two weeks prior to that. It's achieved through the strength of fair bargaining made possible by unions, with many individuals coming together to collectively forge a stronger bargaining position as a cohesive group. It allows the working man a more level playing field to negotiate things that society now takes for granted, such as a fair wage, safer working conditions and a 40-hour workweek. These advances in human rights would never have been possible for the individual worker were it not for their union brothers and sisters coming together to make it happen. Those stickers you see on our hard hats are absolutely true: “Unions: The people who brought you the weekend”.

What appears at first glance to be a fairly impressive wage package is, in fact, a considerably larger amount than what the union worker takes home at the end of each week. A sizable percentage of union wages actually goes to support and protect our families, in the form of weekly contributions to things like medical and dental benefits, carefully curated pension plans and death benefits for our spouses and families. These are all things that we have worked hard to develop and nurture in the interest of keeping our loved ones safe, healthy and financially secure during hard times.

It's been proven time and time again that unions also serve a greater purpose to society in general by motivating non-union employers to provide safer, better working conditions, raise the prevailing wage as non-union employers strive to attract employees by providing wages that are competitive with the union workforce, and drive non-union employers to initiate contribution matching-style retirement plans, whereby the employer matches a percentage of the monies put into an RRSP by the worker. This is still a far cry from union pension plans, but it is an attempt by some employers to remain competitive in the labour market.

In reality, unions really have done the heavy lifting that has provided an enhanced quality of life for nearly everyone in our society through a trickle-down effect.

If time allows today, there are a few other key issues impacting our workforce that I'd like to bring to the committee's attention as well.

This past summer, UA Local 663 in Sarnia had nearly 300 members on our out-of-work list. These highly trained welders, steamfitters, plumbers and apprentices were unable to procure employment, while one of the most heavily government-subsidized projects in history employed temporary foreign workers just down the road at the Stellantis battery plant in Windsor. We encourage both the federal and provincial governments to continue supporting these types of projects, which will ensure that Canadian energy needs are met in the future. However, they must come with the requirement of Canadian workers building these projects. We would also encourage project labour agreements or, at the very least, prevailing wage policies to ensure that these massive government investments equate to good-paying jobs for Canadian families.

I can't stress enough the importance of UTIP grants—the union training and innovation program—which allow us to improve and continue our union training programs. These are programs that allow us to continue to supply the most highly trained workforce in Canada. Expanding these grants to include bricks and mortar investment would also allow building trades unions to increase much-needed training space and ensure the continued success of our training programs well into the future. When local unions are investing in the future of their members by building, renovating or expanding their training centres, we often run into issues with financing these projects through private sector banks. The Government of Canada could also offer financing options for these projects, streamlining the construction process and putting more highly skilled workers on construction projects faster.

My final concern to bring forward to you today is the need for government support for emissions reduction projects in the petrochemical industry. While we all want to combat climate change, we need to ensure that the government supports not only new construction but also emissions reduction projects in existing facilities. The petrochemical sites of Sarnia-Lambton can continue to secure the energy needs of Ontario and beyond. However, government support is needed to ensure that the client owners of these sites invest in their assets in Ontario, instead of closing them down, and that emissions reduction goals are set on realistic and workable timelines with government support.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I owe everything that my family and I have to being a union member—every family vacation we've ever taken, every memory of my children’s smiles on Christmas morning, the ability to care for them in an adequate manner and provide them with a comfortable home in a safe neighbourhood, where they could grow and flourish and eventually raise children of their own. You can see us in February about that last one—my wife and I are very excited about being first-time grandparents.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for your time today. I look forward to answering any questions or providing any insight that I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Archer.

Now to conclude, Ms. Wybou, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Tristen Wybou, Executive Vice-President, British Columbia General Employees' Union]

Thank you for having me here today.

I just want to take a moment to very quickly introduce myself. I will translate right after.

[Witness spoke in Sm'algya̱x and provided the following text:]

Tristen di waayu, Ts'msyenu, G_a_nhada di pdeegn ada Kxeen di wil 'waatgu.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

My name is Tristen. I'm Ts’msyen, and my clan is the Raven. I come from a small town up north here in B.C. called Prince Rupert.

[English]

I was thinking about what to say here for quite a while, and all I ended up preparing was a couple of speaker notes. The thing that sat in my notepad for the longest time was simply to remember who was really, truly a friend and what was there when you needed it. That has been my experience as a union member.

I started as a councillor in a BCGEU-certified job when I was quite young. At that time, I was still being granted the patience and the grace to learn things as I was getting going, to be introduced as a new union member, to join the local executive and to eventually get involved with my labour council. During all of that, in the background were many colleagues I hadn't yet met who fought for things like a low-wage redress, which significantly supported my own income at a time when I greatly needed it as I was going through things like medical transition and mental health concerns resulting from a long series of intergenerational traumas in my community and in my family and home.

What I learned from much of that experience back then was that the union is where the people who look out for you are. It's where folks invite you to a barbecue. It's the place where people come and help you pack up when you decide you need to move at the last minute and think you can do it entirely by yourself. I enjoyed much of my experience then learning that, as I was growing and adjusting, there were so many people fighting alongside me for the things that I needed to get through when I was young and new and fresh to start and that I did not know would be as important as I know them now.

I later ended up moving down to the Lower Mainland, where I live now, and I unionized my work site down here for a small non-profit. Coming in, I knew at that point already that my livelihood was meant to come from a unionized work site and that this is where I would receive gainful employment. As someone with disability, it's imperative to me that my job security is protected, that there are anti-discrimination policies in place and that I have a say in the structure of the conditions around my work.

We unionized to lock in much of the compensation that we already had, knowing that we wanted people doing equal work, out of the gate, as soon as they came in, to receive equal pay and benefits. We wanted to address wage parity. We had means of making sure our voices were properly heard when doing the work that impacted other communities, and we represented ourselves with doing the work that we knew we needed. Ultimately, however, what we truly came to together, upon coming down here, was realizing that the folks you organize with are the people who extend beyond just a contract.

Unionism is the collective bargaining regime. It is coming out of the law of contracts and coming into something where you have a little bit more equal say in power, but it's also about working to see your communities strive, smile and thrive. It's those whose labour upholds everything, and yet they find themselves still at the mercy of their paycheque at the end of each couple of weeks.

Worker power has the ability to secure equal pay for equal work. Worker power and solidarity have the strength to carry you forward when you need to fight for change so that you can do what matters in a way that's safe, that's accessible, that's informed and that keeps us up with the costs of what it truly takes to keep you going, whether that's spiritual, emotional, financial or physical.

I want to leave it there and keep it short and sweet. I'm so grateful for the other witnesses on this panel saying so much of what I had percolating in my head about the way in which unions can stand against things like two-tiering and the way in which we can stand and protect our fellow members against things like contract flipping. There are so many important things that have come to benefit all of us, unionized or not, as a rising tide raises all ships alongside it.

What I ultimately would like to impart is the knowledge that, as one big union all together, people, as workers, have the power to invoke change and make sure that all of us get home from work safely at the end of the day and keep it so that one job is enough.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Wybou, for your presentation.

Just before we begin, there's only one time slot for questioning today, so we'll go directly to one o'clock.

We'll follow the approved speaking order, beginning with Mr. Seeback for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Archer, I want to start a conversation with you.

I'm the proud father of a union son whose life got immeasurably better when he started working for a company that was unionized, so I agree with everything you say about how unions make working conditions better.

You mentioned the Stellantis battery plant and some of the challenges happening with employment. Yes, unions provide better wages, except when government policy ends up losing union jobs. Then there are no wages, so it's not actually a better wage. Policy has so much of an implication on that.

One of the things I heard is that the lack of unions at the table when those large government investments were negotiated for those plants has led to the conditions where there are, in fact, workers coming from other countries to perform the work that our skilled union members could do. I wonder if you could speak about how your being at the table matters, and whether you raised these concerns with the government.

[Scott Archer]

Thank you.

I believe it was more of an issue of us being promised one thing and something else materializing.

There ended up being a lot of pipe showing up on site that we were told came from Korea, but the paint on it was still wet. There is a lot of shifty business going on with that employer. It's quite frustrating. That project was funded by such a massive amount of taxpayer dollars, and we had the old switcheroo pulled on us, for lack of a better term.

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

That resulted, obviously, in lost work opportunities for members of your union and others, I suspect.

[Scott Archer]

I would say so, certainly.

We had, as I said earlier, roughly 300 members on our out-of-work list. A lot of people were looking forward to that job being a bit of a financial saviour for them—timing being what it was. However, it did not pan out or amount to that, as it could have and should have.

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

One other thing I hear so often when I travel and meet with unions all across the country is that there is a need for apprentices and funding for apprentices.

Now, there is a massive amount of taxpayer dollars going to these plants. Were any of those taxpayer dollars tied to ensuring there would be opportunities for apprentices at these plants? If not, do you think this is something the government should be doing?

[Scott Archer]

I know a few of our local contractors had quite a few apprentices on site, but I couldn't comment with much accuracy, to be honest with you, on the ratio of apprentices there, the ratio of our local people to people from other jurisdictions.

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

If they're putting that amount of money in, shouldn't the government say the company has to pay for a certain number of apprentices to be on the job to get that training?