THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 11, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 3 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.
Senator Jane Cordy (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: My name is Jane Cordy. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia and deputy chair of this committee. Our chair is Senator Omidvar. She’s tied up for the first hour of our meeting time today in another committee and will join us in an hour for the second panel.
Before we begin, I ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
I know we’ve all heard this many times, but we heard on Monday, I believe it was, about a quite severe incident in the House of Commons related to an earpiece being too close to the mic, so I will continue going through it again just as a friendly reminder.
If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Use only a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you’re not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for that purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
Today, we are continuing our study of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.
Before we begin, I will have senators introduce themselves, starting with a member of steering Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: Good afternoon. Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Lankin: Frances Lankin, a senator for Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Hello. Patrick Brazeau from Quebec.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec. Good afternoon.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
The Deputy Chair: Joining us this afternoon, for the first panel, we welcome the following witnesses by video conference: Dr. Robert Paul Hebdon, Professor Emeritus of Organizational Behaviour at McGill University; Rafael Gomez, who is an associate professor at the University of Toronto; and from the Montreal Economic Institute, joining us in person, we have Daniel Dufort, Chief Executive Officer, and Gabriel Giguère, Senior Policy Analyst. Thank you all for joining us today.
I understand that Dr. Hebdon, Mr. Gomez and Mr. Dufort will be making opening remarks.
Dr. Hebdon, please go ahead.
Robert Paul Hebdon, Professor Emeritus, Organizational Behaviour, McGill University, as an individual: Thank you for this opportunity, Madam Chair and members of the Senate. It’s a privilege to be here.
I’m going to try to follow a PowerPoint which I believe has been distributed. Even if you can’t see it on your screen, I will put it on my screen and follow it. For those who either have it electronically or in paper form, you’ll be able to follow along.
If that doesn’t work, by the way, I have another plan, but I will start with the PowerPoint.
This is a presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on June 11. My name is Robert Hebdon. I’m a professor emeritus at McGill University. For anyone who doesn’t know, professor emeritus is a retired professor but with some distinction.
The Deputy Chair: Sorry. I have just discovered that we don’t all have copies. I thought it was just me, and I got a copy from the clerk. Is there a way we can see it, Mr. Hebdon?
Mr. Hebdon: I was hoping to share it electronically, but that wasn’t possible, apparently.
The Deputy Chair: You cannot share your screen, sorry. Just explain it, I guess, without the visual.
Mr. Hebdon: I think it will be self-explanatory. We’re here to study the impact of a ban on replacement workers. I will continue along that line, and I will present some research in which I’ve been involved and which I think will help the committee in their deliberations.
More specifically, I will give you some evidence that I found in a paper that I did on strike incidents, strike duration and wages, and the impact on the ban of replacement workers on these variables.
The study I’m referring to is entitled, The Impact of Collective Bargaining Legislation on Strike Activity and Wage Settlements, which I think says it all. I can’t say any more about the relevance of it. It seems to fit entirely into the mandate of this committee. It was published in 2014 in the Industrial Relations journal, which is a journal out of Berkeley, and it’s one of the leading journals in the field. As an academic study, it was done quite rigorously.
The lead author is Michele Campolieti from the University of Toronto, along with myself at McGill and Benjamin Dachis was at the C.D. Howe Institute as an economist.
The study was very comprehensive. It covered a 40-year period from 1978 to 2008. It included all 10 provinces in the federal jurisdiction. It included controls for various economic and legislative changes. So it was done through a very rigorous statistical analysis.
I should add that Professor Campolieti, at least at the time, taught econometrics at the University of Toronto in the Department of Economics. If you read the article, you’ll find out that the level of econometrics is quite high.
The study was analyzed in two periods, actually. In addition to the overall 40-year analysis, we did some analysis by breaking it up into the first period of 1978-92 and 1993-2008. It turns out that several policy variables had different effects in each period, including replacement worker bans. So this analysis was relevant. The differences between the effect on these variables by the ban on replacement workers were significantly different by each period so I’ve included that in the analysis.
The reason for breaking it up into two was that, after 1993, was the first — sorry, there weren’t any other analyses like this one, a Canada-wide analysis of various labour policy variables across Canada; 1992 was the last time it was done so we wanted that breakdown.
I will skip right to the results of the study. As I mentioned, it’s the effect of the ban on replacement workers across Canada, and effects on strikes, strike duration and wage settlements. Just looking at the total sample — that’s for the whole 40-year period from 1978 to 2008 — we found a neutral effect. In other words, there was nothing statistically significant in the effect on strikes of a ban on replacement workers.
Maybe this is a little bit counterintuitive. I’ve had some collective bargaining experience, and I know if you are faced with a ban on replacement workers, it will probably add a little bit to your bargaining power. It’s one less thing you have to worry about during the strike. I probably would have expected to see a little bit more on strikes if I had to hypothesize that. I might also hypothesize stronger, longer strikes in some cases. I might also hypothesize one —
The Deputy Chair: You have one more minute, Mr. Hebdon, so if you can just finish up. Sorry.
Mr. Hebdon: That’s okay. I’m going to do that. We found strikes to be neutral, and then we broke it into two periods. There was actually an increase in the first period and a decrease in the second period. Strikes were longer throughout the whole sample, which is what we sort of expected, and in the first part of the sample, but they were neutral in the latter part. Wage settlements similarly decreased, and this was a surprise. The wage settlements were actually lower as a result of this. In the final period, it was neutral or increased.
Let me just say something quickly about the second period; 1993 to 2008 is really the beginning of the effect globalization and free trade. I would argue that the reason things are different in the second part is that it was a tougher bargaining environment for unions. That shows in our data.
Just to conclude quickly then, we found essentially no significant negative effects on the implementation of a ban on replacement workers on strikes or on wage settlements. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Hebdon.
Mr. Gomez, please go ahead.
Rafael Gomez, Director, Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, University of Toronto, as an individual: Hi. Thank you so much for this invitation. I appreciate it. My comments are a little different. My background is actually in econometrics. I have been doing a lot of empirical work, but I will talk about a different kind of effect that changes like this can affect in the labour relations system.
When we talk broadly about the labour relations system, as an industrial relations scholar, I am not an advocate for labour nor for management. I am not in a business school; I am not in a labour studies program. I think I’m advocating for the institutions that support a well-functioning labour market. Collective bargaining is one of those institutions.
I’m thinking about two different ways to “regulate” a market. You can allow the market to do all the work or you can start putting in a lot of statutory rules and then enforce them with inspectors and so on. Or you can find some place in the middle, which is what bargaining and negotiating are.
I think that’s what we, as industrial relations scholars, are trying to do. Our scholarship is there to help support institutions like collective bargaining to create a more efficient and equitable labour market.
It’s in that context that you have to be careful about a piece of legislation like this which might change the equilibrium. As Professor Hebdon’s research has shown, the actual policy variables like this probably don’t have a huge effect — there are boundary conditions or contextual variables. Furthermore, as Professor Hebdon has said, globalization in the latter part of the 1990s and into the 2000s has had stronger effects on precise outcomes like the number of strikes, the duration of strikes and so on.
I’m going to talk about a political economic effect, namely, if it ain’t broke, you don’t fix it. The historical example is the early 1990s in Ontario, when an NDP government was elected for the first time and ushered in a series of labour reforms. For 45 years, a Progressive Conservative Party had governed but not as a right-wing, ideological government. It was very centrist and moved centre right and centre left when it had to do so. It had this idea that the industrial relations system has to be supported, not supporting one party over another. But when the NDP got in, however, they proceeded to do a lot of things that organized labour had been wanting and asking for. They largely got it. The sting in the tail was the next election because the Ontario Progressive Conservatives were back in power in 1995 under Mike Harris, who proceeded to undo not only what the NDP had done in that brief period in which they were in power but also went back to doing something that hadn’t existed for 45 years in Ontario.
One of the lightning rods was this issue of replacement workers. Employers said, “Why is the NDP changing this law? We almost never use replacement workers.” That is true. Strikes are rare to begin with. I just had a PhD student finishing work on strike activity. Looking at a 20-year window, 98.6% of her sample of collective agreements never ended up on strike, meaning that her outcome available, namely, what’s the likelihood of a strike, happens 1.4% of the time. Most collective agreements are settled, negotiated and don’t lead to a strike.
So the n, the outcome — a strike is very rare. It is even rarer that when a strike happens, the first thing an employer will do is put in replacement workers. That’s a rarity on top of a rarity. However, it could signal to one party that, suddenly, their concerns and interests aren’t being heard. It can lead to this pendulum swinging which industrial relations experts — what we call “neutrals,” for example, arbitrators and labour board chairs — are worried about.
If you are interested, I direct you to Kevin Burkett, a well-known arbitrator in Ontario, who gave the 2015 Bora Laskin Award address and it was precisely on this history.
One of the worrying effects of legislation like this is what it will produce in the future. You have to be cognizant of political developments. Who will be the governing party in a year and a half? That makes a difference to the kind of legislation you put in place today because, in a parliamentarian system with a majority government, things like that can be undone. That’s not what we want in the industrial relations space. We want balance, stability, fairness and efficiency from both parties to be heard. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gomez.
[Translation]
Daniel Dufort, Chief Executive Officer, Montreal Economic Institute: Thank you for inviting me here today. My colleague Gabriel Giguère and I are very pleased to be here to discuss such an important issue as replacement workers.
The proposed legislation on the use of replacement workers during work stoppages in federally regulated industries would be a major setback for Canadian consumers in terms of the quality and cost of services, without offering any significant gains for unionized workers. It’s interesting because part of our work at the MEI involves making economics accessible to the general public to be able to draw the conclusions we’re going to present to you today. Some of our work is based on a study by Professor Hebdon, who presented before us.
The MEI reviewed Bill C-58 in a recent publication.
The first thing we noted is that a legislative framework that prevents the use of replacement workers is not the norm, but the exception to the rule. Only two Canadian provinces have adopted such a measure, specifically Quebec, which adopted it back in 1977, and British Columbia, which followed suit in 1993. The Ontario government had also passed similar legislation in 1993, but Premier Mike Harris’s government got rid of it during the “common sense revolution”. That gives you a bit of the history of this type of legislation in this country. Even a province like Saskatchewan, the birthplace of the NDP, has never passed such legislation.
If we compare the different provinces, comparing those that have similar legislation and those that don’t, strikes are more common in the provinces that have banned replacement workers, and work stoppages are longer, up to 60% longer, in fact. However, the most important thing to note is that measures prohibiting the use of replacement workers do not lead to better pay for unionized workers. Actually, the opposite is true. After this kind of legislation passes, private investment drops by 25%, and employee compensation falls by 3.6%. In other words, employee compensation tends to be 3.6% lower than in provinces without such legislation.
It’s also important to recognize that the ban set out in Bill C-58 would affect strategic industries in particular, which could contribute to even more harmful effects. As we speak, there are threats of strikes in the rail industry, for example, at both CN and CPKC. If CPKC’s 80 rail traffic controllers were on strike with this legislation in effect, there wouldn’t be a single train running on the network.
Not only would this measure paralyze the transportation of goods, but it would also have an impact on passenger service. Many commuter train networks use these rail lines, including Vancouver’s West Coast Express, GO Transit’s Milton Line and three Exo lines in the Montreal area. These could all be shut down in the absence of replacement workers. If workers in any of the trades in the aviation sector were to go on strike, this could shut down our airports, which are essential points of entry to the country and serve as economic hubs.
We can also imagine the impact that a breakdown in telecommunications infrastructure would have if employees aren’t available to make the necessary repairs. In short, Bill C-58 won’t help Canadian workers. Quite the contrary, it actually represents a potential nuisance for all Canadians. The unintended consequences of this bill mean that it is simply not worthwhile.
Thank you very much.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. We’ll now have questions and answers.
Senator Seidman: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us this afternoon. I am going to talk about unintended consequences, so thank you for giving me that opening.
If the bill were adopted, it would impact workers and employers in the federally regulated private sector, which represents about a million workers and about 22,300-odd employers. Currently, there are only two provinces, British Columbia and Quebec, with similar legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers. As we heard, Quebec is probably the purest. B.C. doesn’t have the full force of this piece of legislation.
I’d like to know what lessons, if any, can be learned from the implementation of replacement worker prohibitions in Quebec and in British Columbia? What are the unintended consequences? I’d like to hear from all three of you. I don’t know how much time I have, but I might start with Professor Hebdon, move to Professor Gomez and then to Mr. Dufort.
Mr. Hebdon: Thank you. The research that we did actually answers that question directly — perhaps not on the unintended consequences so much — but you have to understand that when that study was done over a 40-year period, it takes the period prior to the implementation of the ban on replacement workers before and after. The dependent variable in effect is the change in the policy. It looks at the effect of that change and the policy, both in Quebec and in B.C., on strikes, strike duration and wages. Those are the outcomes that I explained in my presentation. I won’t go over them again.
In terms of unintended consequences, you’ll see in my presentation too that there are some surprises there. Wages were supposed to go up. Workers were supposed to have more bargaining power. They went down in the first part of that study. We don’t really know why exactly. Someone had mentioned investment. It’s quite possible that’s the case, but when you do a major study like this, you have to couple what I’m talking about with perhaps what Professor Gomez talks about at the local level, at the micro level, if you like. We know what the outcome is in each of those cases, and there were surprises from it.
I would also argue that the surprises were minimal in nature. They weren’t anything that you need to worry about as policy-makers.
[Translation]
Gabriel Giguère, Senior Public Policy Analyst, Montreal Economic Institute: The literature seems to show an increase in the duration and frequency of strikes, so I decided to look at whether the data available from Statistics Canada for the past 10 years are consistent with the economic literature. In Quebec, for every 1,000 in the population, the number of days not worked is much higher than elsewhere in the country, and British Columbia ranks third in this respect. The ban on the use of replacement workers could definitely be a contributing factor. I’m not suggesting that it’s the only cause, but it partly explains why there are more strike days than days not worked per 1,000 workers.
[English]
Senator Lankin: I will direct my question to Professor Hebdon, but as a comment, Professor Gomez, I was at the cabinet table in 1994 or whenever we brought that legislation in. I understand what you’re saying in terms of the whiplash effect of the successor government’s positioning, but I would say it was the same, for example, with social assistance, where there was an attempt to raise rates for actual cost of living survival, and rates were not just put back. They were cut and slashed far beyond that. What future governments do future governments will do, and I don’t think we can build policy on that.
Professor Hebdon, very nice to see you again. It’s been a very long time.
Mr. Hebdon: Likewise.
Senator Lankin: I appreciate your appearance. Listening to the comments on research, I have gone through all the research the parties have been presenting and thinking about with respect to this in the House of Commons and outside of that. Without meaning disrespect, I would call most of it advocacy research in that it comes from the union side or the employer side and not what I would call rigorous academic research.
Now, I sought for that and found your paper, and it was one of the most difficult pieces of research I’ve ever waded through in terms of its technicalities, but the rigour is impressive and the publishing of it in the substantial and well-recognized journal that you talk about — the length and the duration is important. As we heard from Dr. Smith and Dr. Stanford this morning — they were actually referring to an earlier document that you were part of a research team on with C.D. Howe, but it wasn’t this; this is a later research piece and much more academic — there are so many variables.
When I look in my own past experience, the most significant variable to incidents of strikes has to do, writ large, in terms of statistically, with the economic conditions of the country or the jurisdiction; writ small, what’s going on in that workplace and the partnership and relationship.
I read from yours — and I’d like you to confirm this — that all the various policy pieces essentially in your research have not had a significant impact on this. We have had warring points of view come forward saying it’s more strikes, fewer strikes, longer, less. In fact, the only Canadian study that I can find with empirical data is the one that you’ve done, and I see no significant impact as I read it. Could you comment on that further, please?
Mr. Hebdon: Yes, that was actually my conclusion in the last slide, that I don’t see any significant effects.
Just to comment on the quality of the research, when my co‑authors and I embarked on this project, we had no idea what we were going to find. We didn’t start out with an idea in mind that this is what we were going to try to improve. This was our hypothesis. We, in fact, were in the unknown. We developed some hypotheses based on some little prior research, but we had no axe to grind in that process.
I should also add that this study was derived out of the C.D. Howe Institute study, which I was part of with Ben Dachis. I have to say, and I don’t like to admit this, that we found some mistakes — or errors of omission, actually — in that study. When we did the rigorous study before this journal and it went through the rigorous peer review process, it was greatly improved, not only in terms of the analysis we did but also even the data gathering was better.
The problem is if you’re an advocacy organization, you’re out to prove a particular point. I’m not saying the research is worthless, but it’s suspect. I think the more reliable type of research is the type of research that I’ve done and what Professor Gomez does. If you go through the rigours of an academic process, you’ll have reviewers who will blindly review your work and will show no mercy to you until you get it perfect. That didn’t happen in the C.D. Howe case. It doesn’t happen, generally speaking, in the advocacy world.
Senator Lankin: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’m going to ask my question in French. It’s also for Professor Hebdon. I’m wondering whether there’s any research or data on replacement workers’ skill level and the amount of training they get. My question is in the context of what’s been said about the impact of replacement workers on labour relations and negotiations. We were told that one of the problems or challenges is that these replacement workers may not have the same level of training or the required skills. The same is true in terms of safety in the health care sector. The level of service could therefore be different.
Has this been proven? Is there any research or data on this?
[English]
Mr. Hebdon: Just a very quick answer, and I wish I could satisfy you more, but I’m not aware of any research on this, but I think it’s definitely a valid concern. Perhaps Professor Gomez has something.
Mr. Gomez: Might I interject?
The Deputy Chair: Certainly, go ahead.
Senator Petitclerc: Please.
Mr. Gomez: There is some evidence that replacement workers aren’t of a similar quality and that there are knock-on consequences for defects. In the case of Firestone, a very emblematic case, there was a problem with the production of the wheels. There were two plants in New Jersey. In one plant, they had a strike and brought in replacement workers, and that turned out to be the source of most of the defects. But it’s worse. It wasn’t just the replacement workers; after the strike ended and workers came back, they were so resentful of the process and what happened that the defect rate actually got worse.
My point is that when you invoke and bring in replacement workers, it is something that is very high stakes. It ends up not helping the employer and does damage to the employment relationship, which is why it is so rarely used and rarely, if ever, happens. There are these emblematic cases. This study that I’m talking about was published by Alexandre Mas of Princeton. It is another study that was published in an academic journal, not for advocacy research.
There is a huge cost, and sometimes, the cost is borne by the company via its reputation and in the product quality or service delivery that ensues.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. That was helpful. Are we talking about quality and productivity? Can it apply to safety as well?
Mr. Gomez: Yes. In this case, it was product safety. But you are right, it could also extend to workers not being trained enough on machinery or whatever the context of the workplace might be.
I want to go back to something. The point is that the strike in and of itself is an infrequent event. On top of it, the use of replacement workers becomes even more infrequent, and when it does happen, what often happens is that the result in a particular instance sets a path toward a mindset of, “Wow, we’ll never do this again.” Most employers realize it is not a sustainable and good tactic unless the point of the whole strike or lockout was to essentially destroy the labour relations collective bargaining system. In Canada, that has happened in the past. There have been some employers that have wanted to escape collective bargaining, and that’s one way they might do it. Again, that is a rare event.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here. This is very interesting. Thank you so much to the witnesses.
Mr. Gomez, you were talking about the whole industrial relations suite of regulations and laws, creating balance and stability in the industrial relations. I don’t think I got whether you felt that this bill would cause some instability or if it would improve the stability of industrial relations. That’s the first question.
Then, if I have time, I will ask a specific question to Professor Hebdon.
But, Mr. Gomez, could you comment on that? Your premise was that you want to keep things stable.
Mr. Gomez: Yes, senator. That is very perceptive; I didn’t really tell you whether I thought this was an unstable addition or not.
In the present context, given what I was mentioning before about the infrequency of strikes — and the federal sector, quite a mature sector with large employers with big brands and brand equity that could be damaged by bad employment relations outcomes — I don’t think any of our major federal employers are thinking about escaping collective bargaining nor could they in many cases because of the way legislation works.
So I do feel this is an unstable addition. We don’t have a raft of employers that are using replacement workers for the purposes of, as I said before, eschewing and destroying the collective bargaining relationship. Senator Lankin was very much part of that NDP government, and you are right: governments have to govern for the times they are in. However, when changes are made, especially on the eve of a potential electoral cycle, you do have to be cognizant of the unintended consequences of a government that might come in on the backs of what are perceived to be anti-employer actions. Then the pendulum — this is why industrial relations experts, who try to remain neutral say, “Is this a problem that needs fixing now? If it isn’t, then let’s encourage and work on other dimensions of the labour relationship that might not antagonize one party and lead to this whipsaw when a government comes into power that might be more favourable to one party or another.”
I hope that answers your question.
Senator Burey: Yes, thank you.
For Professor Hebdon, thank you so much for that elegant research. I haven’t had a chance to read the paper, but we heard from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, this morning. In terms of the whole issue of being adequately resourced in terms of human resources and funding, did you look at that in relation to seeing whether an adequately resourced CIRB or an equivalent institution really helped to move decisions along? That would lead to the stability of any kind of legislation that we bring forward here.
Mr. Hebdon: There is only one thing that comes to mind, and I hope it is relevant to what you are asking.
One of the things that came through in the study is that when you have had a long strike, the probability of you having another long strike is high. So you have these troubled relationships that exist that produce long strikes, and then long strikes and long strikes. The answer to that is to have some kind of intervention by the CIRB or some other federal government agency. I know that they tried to change relationships when the parties ask for it, but you might have to look at stronger forms of intervention to get the parties out of that cycle.
So yes, I think organizations such as the CIRB have to be adequately resourced because they have to deal with these special problems that exist out there. We found that in our study.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for Mr. Dufort and Mr. Giguère. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Mr. Dufort, I’ve noticed that it seems to be one or the other. You mentioned that in Quebec, since it has legislation on the books that is similar to this, there was a 25% drop in private investment. That’s one of the questions I have for you.
First, what studies did you use to determine that? Was any particular sector affected more than others? The other aspect is that you also mentioned that, per 1,000 workers, there were a certain number of days not worked, but you couldn’t say whether it was due to the application of the law in Quebec. I’d like some clarification on that. It doesn’t appear consistent with other information we’ve received and I’d like to understand your arguments.
Mr. Dufort: Thank you very much for the question. First of all, regarding the 25% drop, the Montreal Economic Institute released a study in 2005 based on literature dealing with what has happened over the last few decades. The study found 25% less investment in the provinces that have passed this type of legislation. I’d be happy to send you the 2004 study at a later date. It seemed to be pretty clear in the literature. As for the number of days—
Senator Cormier: That study was done 20 years ago. Has that study been updated, and does it give us a clear picture? The job market has changed a lot in 20 years.
Mr. Dufort: It hasn’t been completely redone, but it still gives us an understanding of what has happened, and the fact that we already have this picture gives us an idea of what could happen. I’m not saying that it will be exactly the same, but we need to keep in mind that this could have a very real impact on investments.
On the issue of the number of days, of course I can’t say that this is definitely the cause of all of that, but it’s one factor that could explain what’s going on. Unionization rates can also play a role, but when it comes to banning replacement workers, when we look at the literature and some studies, this is connected to the number of workers. In fact, we found that this was happening when the use of replacement workers was banned.
As for the Statistics Canada literature and figures, as I said, those data were collected from 2014 to 2023. I wanted to see what the trend was over a decade. What we found was that in Quebec, per 1,000 workers, there were many more days not worked than elsewhere in Canada.
Senator Cormier: So you haven’t been able to assess all the factors? There’s an assumption that the existence of this legislation does indeed reduce the number of days worked, but you don’t have the full picture that would enable us to clearly state that?
Mr. Dufort: First, I looked at the literature, and it was clear that there was a connection. My first point is that I noticed a connection. I looked at the data to see if this was happening in provinces with a ban on the use of replacement workers. Does this corroborate the economic literature? The answer was yes, based on the data I saw, so with the literature, we could conclude that there was an impact. Beyond that, I couldn’t say… I’m not here to say that it is only because of replacement workers. I think we need to be serious about this issue. There are other factors involved, but there is clearly a connection between the two.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I have a more general question. As I often say, I am not an expert on labour relations, but the balance of power between workers and employers is a complex and delicate balance that definitely requires protective measures for both sides. It seems to me that the idea behind this bill is to ensure a certain balance of power between employees and employers. Would you agree with that perspective?
Mr. Giguère: When we look at the industries affected in this case, the impact on Canadian consumers could be very significant. The daily lives of Canadians could be seriously affected if commuter trains stop running, if workers can’t repair infrastructure breakdowns....
Senator Cormier: Do you have any data on that? Obviously, these are assumptions, but do you have any data?
Mr. Giguère: It’s not data; it’s in the bill you’re analyzing. That’s what’s written in the bill.
Senator Cormier: I was talking about the impact.
Mr. Giguère: The impact has to do with whether trains are running or not, and whether telecom infrastructure works or not. Beyond that, we’re talking about the future. I can’t give you any more precise data at the moment.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I didn’t quite finish with Mr. Dufort and Mr. Giguère. If you would like to continue along the lines of unintended consequences, I would be happy to hear about that. I also note that in your economic publication, the most recent economic note, you said that:
In France, it is prohibited to call upon replacement workers in case of a strike. . . . we observe a ratio of 16,901 days lost per 1,000 workers over the past decade.
This is a new economic update, so it is not old data I presume. In comparison, the ratio for employees of federally regulated transport companies in Canada is 1,037 days lost for 1,000 workers over the same period or around one sixteenth as many as their counterparts in the French rail sector.
I will leave that on the table and I will let you reply. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Dufort: Thank you for the question. First, to continue with the theme of Senator Cormier’s question, SMEs are another very important issue. With regard to railways, rail companies.... At the end of the day, when goods can’t be delivered to SMEs, that has an impact. As we all know from the pandemic, these situations are tough for small businesses. The impact of banning the use of replacement workers will be much greater, especially for small businesses whose supply chains could be disrupted. It could be harder for them to adapt. The potential impacts are real. So those are what could be called unintended consequences. I would agree with that.
The example from France is interesting and echoes what I said earlier. Banning the use of replacement workers is not the entire story, but what we’ve seen at SNCF, which is essentially the French company responsible for railways, is that when they do go on strike — and France has a strike culture — workers can’t be replaced. Of course, the dynamics show that when workers know they can’t be replaced, they strike a little more often. Unfortunately, that’s what has happened in France.
I’m not saying that the exact same thing would happen here, but it’s important to keep these examples in mind before passing this kind of legislation, because these are concrete examples. I can draw a parallel with what I mentioned at the outset, the impact on SMEs. It’s not just that people won’t be able to travel, which already has serious impacts, but the impact on our SMEs will be harder to resolve. Let me put it that way.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Indeed, we will hear from small- and medium-sized businesses tomorrow, I believe. We will ask them those questions. Thank you.
Senator Lankin: Thank you. I appreciate the comments that you have placed on the table. I am having trouble seeing the relevance of France to here with the whole suite of labour relation policy differences that exist, the actual legislation itself and also with respect to the review of Quebec. The legislation changed, I believe, in the late 1970s. As I recall, it was a time of great strife in the construction sector in particular and violence on picket lines. I don’t demean this. It is important for us to hear from the union side, but I come back to research that tries to look into these things.
Professor Hebdon, in the work that you have done — not necessarily conducted the research yourself — have you done any rigorous academic comparison of jurisdictions like France and Quebec in the existing legislation? Does that exist? I just wonder how much we can look to what has happened in other countries that have a whole different cultural and industrial relations suite of policies.
Mr. Hebdon: Yes, it is a separate field in industrial relations, the comparative field. I dipped my foot into that a couple of times while comparing it. It is very difficult to do because the contexts are so different. You have made that point already. I understand that France has a constitutional right to strike. We have a protected right under our Constitution, but theirs is explicit. Starting from that premise, if you are going to compare strike rates across countries, it is hard to control for all the differences between the law and the whole mindset that some countries have toward striking because it is so different than ours.
Ours is quite a regulated model. You can only strike after a certain time period, and so on. In most of the other countries, it is quite unregulated so it is hard to take that into account with the differences. My lengthy answer is that I don’t know of any definitive studies in that area. However, there are studies that compare strike rates. I have been involved in a couple of those, but they aren’t something on which I want to rely on as a policy‑maker to suggest that we go in the direction of some other country in our policy-making. I think that’s the wrong thing to do. We need to focus on our own variation in laws and make serious changes when they are needed and when it doesn’t have any huge impact on the outcomes.
I was surprised at how insignificant the ban on replacement workers was. In the final analysis, it didn’t really have a big impact on any of the variables that we looked at.
Senator Lankin: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Senators, this brings us to the end of the first panel. I would like to thank our witnesses, Dr. Hebdon, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Dufort and Mr. Giguère for being with us this afternoon and for your testimony.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Colleagues, we resume our study of Bill C-58. For those of you watching live, my name is Ratna Omidvar and chair of the committee. I wish to thank my colleague, Deputy Chair Senator Cordy, for chairing in my absence in the past hour.
For our next panel, we welcome our witnesses by video conference. On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bea Bruske, President, is here. Hello again. From Unifor, Lana Payne, National President; and representing Teamsters Canada, Mariam Abou-Dib, Executive Director. Thank you so much for joining us today. I understand that Ms. Bruske and Ms. Payne have opening remarks. We will start with you, Ms. Bruske, and you will have five minutes for your remarks.
Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress: Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Bea Bruske. I am the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC. Our affiliates are national and international unions representing over 3 million workers in every economic sector and every region of Canada.
The CLC strongly supports Bill C-58 and urges the committee to pass the bill without delay. Since 1956, the CLC has advocated for improved labour protections. For decades, we have called for a prohibition on replacement workers — scabs — in the context of a strike or lockout. Prohibiting the use of scabs in the federally regulated private sector is an important step to making our economy fairer for everyone.
In my over 30 years as a union activist, I’ve walked on countless picket lines in every part of the country, and I can tell you that the decision to walk a picket line is never an easy decision for a worker to make. No worker wants to walk a picket line instead of working. What they want is a fair deal reached at the bargaining table. Sometimes it is not the workers’ choice, but rather the employer has locked the workers out. The employer then rubs salt in the wound by using scabs to keep operations going.
Every member of Parliament, or MP, from every party in the House of Commons recognized that the interests of Canadians are best served by prohibiting the use of scabs. How often do we get unanimity in the House? This bill received unanimous support twice. That speaks to the justice and common sense of Bill C-58.
Please pass this bill without delay. The use of a work stoppage is afforded to both sides in a contract negotiation when they get to the bargaining table, but when employers are allowed to use scabs, it puts a thumb on the scale and forces workers to harden their positions.
Introducing scabs to replace striking or locked-out workers poisons labour relations. It exacerbates tensions, it deepens mistrust and it harms the relationship between workers and employers. These harms can last long beyond the end of the labour dispute. The use of scabs also risks prolonging work stoppages and increasing economic uncertainty and volatility.
The economic security of all Canadians is best served by keeping appropriately trained, skilled and knowledgeable workers on the job. I will remind senators again that 100% of voting MPs endorsed Bill C-58 at second reading and then endorsed the amended bill again at third reading. This is something that we can’t or shouldn’t dismiss. No bill is perfect, and you may be tempted to amend Bill C-58. On behalf of Canadian workers, I ask you not to do that. It is critical that this bill passes swiftly and without delay so that it can come into force as soon as possible.
Workers and their families cannot afford the risk of any delay. The Canadian economy cannot afford the risk. I think we can all agree that there are many dark clouds on our horizon that threaten to destabilize our economic well-being. Employers should not be allowed to exacerbate those destabilizing forces and create greater uncertainty by using scabs instead of doing the necessary work at the bargaining table.
Workers are the true engine of our economy, and yet too often when economic conditions sour workers and their families bear the brunt.
To help protect them, you must protect the right to good faith collective bargaining. By joining with the unanimous support of your House colleagues, you will be ensuring that employers treat the bargaining table as a place to work out differences. Fair and successful bargaining requires good faith on both sides of the table. The use of scabs is contrary to that.
Let me conclude by urging you, once again, to please pass this bill without delay. Thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bruske.
Ms. Payne.
Lana Payne, National President, Unifor: Thank you and good afternoon, honourable senators and members of this committee, and my fellow panellists as well. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address you today.
As you know, I’m Lana Payne, National President of Unifor. We represent 320,000 workers across this country, including 70,000 in federally regulated private sectors such as air, road, rail and marine as well as telecommunications and media.
Today, I am joining you from Nova Scotia in Atlantic Canada where over 200 Unifor local leaders have gathered for their annual meeting. Today, they did something very special. They thanked our 230 members who work at Autoport, a subsidiary of the very powerful and profitable CN Rail. They were thanked by our members for their courage because — for five weeks on strike this winter — these workers faced an employer who used scabs, replacement workers, to try to break their spirit, demoralize them and prevent them from getting a fair collective agreement during an affordability crisis. CN did this as Bill C-58 was being debated and supported by your colleagues in the House of Commons. It is never, as Ms. Bruske said, an easy decision to withdraw your labour, to risk it all, to go without a paycheque in order to fix workplace injustices and improve working conditions.
Bill C-58 is crucial to protecting the rights and dignity of Canadian workers. The basic rights to collectively bargain and to strike when necessary have been fought for by workers over generations, protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
This law is also necessary to modernize our system of labour relations to reflect the current social and economic context of this country and our world, where increased corporate power and wealth require an effective counterbalance.
In our view, Bill C-58 is about restoring balance in bargaining between workers and employers. It’s about levelling the playing field and upholding the principles of fairness and justice in labour relations.
It is not often that legislation as important as this to workers passes with the full support of the House of Commons, as Bill C-58 recently did. This broad support tells us that the advocacy by workers for our own rights over many decades has finally paid off.
The very purpose of a strike — to apply economic pressure on the employer to reach a fair agreement — is fundamentally undermined when employers are able to deploy scabs or, as is often the case, threaten to use them while we actually sit across a bargaining table from them.
The use of replacement workers makes labour disputes more acrimonious and extends the length of those disputes, up to six times longer in Unifor’s experience. Canada’s business lobby organizations — the Chamber of Commerce, Federally Regulated Employers – Transportation and Communications, or FETCO, Canadian manufacturers and exporters and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB — have aggressively fought this law.
But I must highlight there are numerous Canadian examples of employers who are prepared to violate workers’ rights to bargain collectively and use replacement workers at this very moment, which is why I’m before you today to stress, once more, the necessity of this legislation.
I’ve learned over many years in this work that replacement workers don’t help parties get a negotiated deal; they never have and they never will. They are part of an employer strategy to starve workers out, to render them helpless, demoralize them and to accept less.
I want to be clear. The issue we face is not that some employees have too much economic power, a ridiculous notion under the economic system in which we live; it is that employers have too much economic power and have not invested in building the resilient supply chains and infrastructure they are supposedly responsible for.
There are issues such as climate change, global conflict, health and economic disasters that prove a much greater threat to our supply chains. I will stress their impact is not immediately known or predictable.
Peaceful labour relations in our country and, indeed, all over the world rely on the principles of fair and free collective bargaining — principles that improve living and working conditions for Canadian workers.
Anti-scab legislation has been implemented successfully in other jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally. Quebec and British Columbia have these laws. Others are starting to follow suit. We call on you, senators, to uphold the broad-based political and democratic consensus that has been built and speedily move Bill C-58 through the Senate.
Thank you for your time today. I’m available to answer any of your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Payne.
Mariam Abou-Dib, Executive Director, Teamsters Canada: Thank you. Honourable members of the Senate committee and co-panellists, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you today on behalf of Teamsters Canada. As the Executive Director, on behalf of President François Laporte, I am here to urge you to pass the legislation aiming to prohibit replacement workers in federally regulated industries.
Teamsters Canada represents over 135,000 workers across various sectors of the Canadian economy. We are Canada’s transportation and supply chain union, representing workers in all modes of transport, including air, rail, road and we are present in many other sectors.
Our organization is deeply committed to protecting the rights and interests of workers across Canada. The practice of using replacement 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 that exists 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 the 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 and to withhold their labour as a last form of leverage in that process.
Let us not forget that the 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.
We would like to acknowledge we are particularly pleased that the bill does not restrict the ban of replacement workers to an establishment, hence recognizing that today’s material workplace is not what counts so much as the actual work in the context of replacement workers.
We also believe there are strict and limited exceptions within the law to protect public health and safety and prevent significant damage to property. These exceptions should continue to be well-defined and subject to robust enforcement provisions to prevent abuse in regulations.
Enforcing a ban on replacement workers does require a comprehensive approach. We believe 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 that one of the parties submit an application of referral to the CIRB for a ruling on the maintenance of essential services. We believe that submission should be automatic to reduce the additional delays in granting the right to strike to voters.
We also believe a ban on replacement workers, if done effectively, will be a victory for working people and their families in Canada, and will lead to improved labour relations and a more just distribution of the fruits of labour. This will continue to shape an economy where we don’t create 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 where all political parties of all stripes are seeking to find ways to protect the middle class. Moreover, there has been a dangerous trend from certain provincial governments and employers which have been found by courts to have flouted the rights of workers. We must set the bar higher and not risk turning back the clock on hard-fought advancements for workers in this country.
In conclusion, adopting legislation to prohibit replacement workers in federally regulated sectors is a necessary step to protect the rights of workers and promote fair labour practices. It is crucial that the Senate pass this legislation to uphold Charter rights of workers by ensuring that workers’ 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.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all our presenters. We will move to questions from our colleagues.
I will ask one or all of you the first question. The bill was amended in the other place with a coming-into-force of 12 months instead of 18 months. Let’s assume the bill will come into force 12 months from now.
There’s a big difference between 18 months and 12 months. It’s half a year. What are the unintended consequences of shortening this timeline?
Ms. Bruske: In my view, quite frankly, the need for the bill to pass was yesterday. The sooner, the better. The issue that I think we need to concern ourselves with is to ensure that the Canada Industrial Relations Board has the resources it needs to adequately navigate the components of this bill that they will be asked to navigate when it comes to essential services and making those kinds of decisions.
It is very necessary that we have this bill passed quickly. We have ongoing lockout situations that are still occurring in the federally regulated private sector today, and those workers are waiting for a solution to their issue.
Ms. Abou-Dib: I’d like to agree with Ms. Bruske. The issue of it coming into force must come hand-in-hand with resourcing the CIRB. Resourcing the CIRB and equipping it to actually handle the responsibilities it’s being given is key to its success.
Ms. Payne: I will just make an additional comment. One of the big issues, of course, is resourcing the CIRB, but it’s also the training that will be required in terms of making sure the new staff have the training that’s necessary. There are a lot of people in Canada who have very good labour relations skills that can be deployed to help with this. I would suggest to you that we don’t need 18 months to train people to do this work. This can also be happening in parallel to this entire process. There was no reason, I believe, to wait 18 months after Royal Assent. That was much too long.
If I’m going to be frank with you, senator, the challenge of this is that it brings us into another election cycle. It will be a new law that has not been fully tested or worked through yet, and I think it’s important that occurs before we get to that point. The more we do right now to get this supported and through the Senate, the quicker we can resource the CIRB to get this work done.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Payne. We do note that the bill was passed unanimously in the other place, so I think we should have some comfort that, election or no election, the aspirations of this bill will be preserved.
We are going to Senator Cordy, followed by Senator Seidman. Colleagues, you have four minutes each for questions and answers. Maybe more. Let me see how this unfolds.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Bruske, Ms. Payne and Ms. Abou-Dib, it’s great to have three strong, powerful women heading up labour unions. You have all broken stereotypes, so welcome to the Senate of Canada. It’s great to have you here.
You’ve all said, maybe in different words, that both labour and government are saying that Bill C-58 is crucial. One of the ways that we’ve heard this — not just today but from others — is about sitting at the bargaining table. I wonder if you could each tell us how you believe this bill will be a platform for a better atmosphere at the bargaining table. Because if you have a good atmosphere at the bargaining table, it means that it’s likely both sides will feel better when they leave. It would be a win-win. I wonder if you can each say something, maybe starting with Ms. Bruske.
Ms. Bruske: Absolutely. I’ve spent many years at bargaining tables in the private sector in Manitoba, and I can tell you that workers, when it comes time to bargain, are excited and worried. They’re excited because it’s an opportunity to address their workplace issues, and they’re worried about potential conflict that may arise.
Workers deciding whether to vote “no” on a proposed collective agreement and vote “yes” to go on strike, or potentially be pushed out on strike because the employer locks them out, are having kitchen table conversations with their families about whether they can afford to go on strike or afford to agree to the offer on the table right now.
I would also add that when workers are making those determinations, economics are one part of that decision-making. But most often for workers when they are deciding to walk a picket line, there are other issues at play. It is often with respect to dignity issues, safety issues in the workplace, hours of work and work-life quality issues that they’re thinking about and it’s workload issues. For workers to make that decision is very difficult. They don’t decide to walk a picket line because they’re fed up with the workplace.
Knowing that they will potentially be replaced by scab employees makes that decision that much more difficult. It means they may be frozen out on a picket line for many months or, in extreme cases, for years. In order to balance the scales and have respectful, good negotiations with the intention of reaching a collective agreement, we need this kind of legislation desperately.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Payne, do you have anything to add to that?
Ms. Payne: Yes. I actually have a live example for you, senator, which can shed a light on what workers go through as an employer is preparing and contemplating to use replacement workers.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we just had a five‑week dispute with Autoport, a subsidiary of CN Rail. We were at the bargaining table for six months trying to get a fair collective agreement. By any stretch of the imagination, this is a lot of effort by our bargaining committee and members to try to get to a good place. We went through the conciliation process. We have, I would say, an exemplary system in Canada in the federal jurisdiction, particularly in terms of conciliation and mediation, to help the parties get to a negotiated deal. Those people are experts and extremely good at their jobs.
Unifor often sets strike deadlines because that is often when you get the best deals and you get them before the strike happens. That happens in 95% or more of the cases. On Friday, before our strike deadline, CN was already preparing to bring in and had trained replacement workers. They were at a bargaining table with us, and our members felt that they were not bargaining in good faith at that moment. It was revealed, of course, at our strike deadline that they were indeed not bargaining in good faith. They were planning to try and bust our collective rights by bringing in replacement workers. This immediately changed the tone. It took a week or so for our members to really calm down. They were very upset with their employer and that they would do this. You can see how this changes the dynamic in the workplace.
After five weeks on a picket line, when you finally reach a tentative agreement as a result of a lot of work and pressure that we had to apply in many other parts of the country on this employer, you don’t go back to a workplace where things are okay. There is now discord between employees and the employer in a way that is different than a regular labour dispute. All labour disputes are hard, but when you add in the element of using replacement workers, it poisons labour relations for a long time to come. It can create toxic workplaces. It does create toxic workplaces.
The way we avoid all of that and the way we get all employers — because not everybody would even contemplate using replacement workers. We bargain a collective agreement a week in this country. We have 3,000 collective agreements. Most of our employers go to the table to bargain fairly, but there are those out there who do not. They will always use the threat of replacement workers to give themselves the upper hand. This is why we need legislation like this to support workers in the bargaining process.
Ms. Abou-Dib: Similar to the situation that Ms. Payne was describing, we recently had a strike at Gate Gourmet at Pearson. It’s another illustration of what happens when you use replacement workers. Our members were watching them pass them by, not having had the security clearance they were required to get, without the training required, which they should be receiving, and without the health and safety training or provisions that they would normally have. In fact, a lot of these replacement workers were put in precarious and sometimes dangerous situations.
Once we finally settled the agreement and went to the membership for ratification, although we managed to get some pretty decent provisions and improvements in the collective agreement, people were so very upset. It just passed; it did not pass with a high approval rate.
That’s what happens when disrespect and disdain are felt by workers who have invested and put their lives into the work that they’re doing, and when an employer can turn around and use someone to replace them so quickly. When there are employers who believe they can just replace workers if they’re on strike, it does not make for an environment — whether it’s negotiation or post-negotiation — where toxicity is not bred.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for your presentations and for being with us today. It is kind of myth-breaking; there’s no question, as my colleague said. As a woman, I find that very reassuring.
I’m thinking of the testimony we heard this morning from Ginette Brazeau of the CIRB, and now your own comments. She expressed concern about CIRB’s resources and the demands especially around sudden crises, which would require an urgent, almost immediate, response.
What measures should be taken to ensure that the CIRB is ready? You talked about resources. What resources come to mind when you think about what they’ll need? If I could have some further explanation of this. You already started to talk about it, but I’ll give you the opportunity to elaborate on that. We could start with Ms. Bruske, move to Ms. Payne and then to Ms. Abou-Dib. Thank you.
Ms. Bruske: Thank you for that question, senator. First and foremost, it’s having the financial resources to be able to fly across the country at the drop of a hat when a strike or lockout is looming. It is critical to have the ability to ensure there are enough funds available and that those funds are readily available to be able to react to a crisis that is developing quickly.
Secondly, it’s about the staffing that my colleague Ms. Payne spoke to, making sure we have well-trained staff who can take very challenging positional issues with two bargaining committees that might be very much at loggerheads, to be able to navigate a solution and to build trust among those folks. That takes a significant amount of know-how, as previously noted.
Many people in Canada have that kind of know-how and the ability to function in that kind of an environment. It’s a matter of putting the right people in place, hiring up and ensuring that resources are available to be able to react quickly. Time is of the essence, being in the right time and the right place and not having to wait for the okay to go ahead.
Ms. Payne: By the way, we like breaking through glass ceilings around here. It’s really great. Thank you for mentioning that. I think Ms. Bruske, Ms. Abou-Dib and I feel good to be on this panel together.
I will mention one of the challenges, and I’m sure the CIRB will know exactly the number of staff they will need to do this. Obviously, with any new legislation, everything is a work‑in‑progress, no matter what it is we’re trying to do.
One of the elements of this legislation is that the staff will have to help the parties come to an agreement around maintenance of service agreements. This will require knowledge of the workplace, listening to the parties and making sure they’re able to take submissions around this.
We have been bargaining in the federal jurisdiction for a long time and are familiar with how we develop these maintenance of service agreements. We’ve done it any number of times, and the employers have as well.
Obviously, this will cause additional work for the board. I think that we’re more than capable of all working together to get through this. The whole point of labour relations is that we’re able to sit down and come to agreements around these things.
I will share with you, senator, that we often put in place maintenance of service agreements in provincial jurisdictions where they’re not required. We work with the employer to ensure that critical infrastructure is protected. That’s important in many workplaces because a complete kind of shutdown of a mill or power plant means that you still have to get back to work after the dispute. You don’t want to spend three weeks getting this critical infrastructure back up and running.
There are ways to get this done. With additional staff and the know-how and willingness to resolve these types of things that will come up through the course of bargaining, I think we can get there. I would say to you that bargaining will be more professional as well as a result of this legislation; there’s no doubt in my mind.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. My question is for all three of you. Perhaps we’ll start in the reverse order with Ms. Abou-Dib, then Ms. Payne and then Ms. Bruske.
This committee has heard concerns that passing Bill C-58 would mean less local and foreign investment and diminish Canada’s reputation as a reliable partner.
How can Bill C-58 balance the need to retain investors while ensuring that workers receive equitable treatment from their employers?
Ms. Abou-Dib: I reject the premise that there would be less local or foreign investment and that we would be a less reliable partner. In fact, British Columbia and Quebec have not experienced any fewer investments or a categorization of less reliable when it comes to the economic factors that are counting.
In fact, I would say that with the passing of this bill, you would create a lot more stability and professionalism. You would rebalance the scales a bit between employer and employee and the ability to bargain in good faith, without the current loopholes that employers have been using from time to time. I think that, in fact, the opposite of the contention of a bad reputation or a threat to investment is the case.
Ms. Payne: I will second that. Thank you, Ms. Abou-Dib, for going first because that was an excellent answer.
The whole point of this legislation is to provide stability so that we can settle at the bargaining table and not have a dispute. There will be more of an incentive to do that now.
I would also say, there are many jurisdictions all over the world that have similar legislation or stronger legislation than we’re talking about right here — workers’ rights to collective bargaining, the right to strike and all of those things are enforced and have better supports than what we’re even talking about.
These are the arguments that get thrown at a piece of legislation from folks who don’t really want this law. The reality is something very different. We are talking about providing more stability for labour relations, not less.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Bruske: I would agree with my colleagues, obviously, that the weakness in business investment in Canada goes back many decades, and this legislation is not going to impact that.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’d like you to comment on Bill C-58. Subclause 6(1) now requires the employer and union to enter into an agreement within 15 days of the notice that collective bargaining is to begin, indicating which activities are to be maintained. My understanding is that the Canada Labour Code already currently authorizes, but does not require, the employer and the union to enter into this kind of essential services agreement within 15 days.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this requirement. I’d also like to know whether this is something that’s actually already being done, that is, entering into such an agreement within 15 days. Perhaps Ms. Bruske could begin, followed by Ms. Payne and Ms. Abou-Dib.
[English]
Ms. Bruske: Having a time limit to come to an agreement on services is not something that’s new. That’s something that the parties would be thinking about as they’re going into bargaining, and they would be having conversations along the path of bargaining.
I think it’s always incumbent on the parties to try to reach an agreement as quickly as possible because a reached agreement, even on essential services, is better than an imposed agreement that may not meet the needs of either party. So I don’t think that’s an unreasonable requirement, but, of course, I’ll leave it to my colleagues to speak about their real-life realities in terms of navigating these things more recently.
Ms. Payne: Thank you very much, senator, for that question. It’s a very important one.
We have done this numerous times. The 15-day time limit is not an issue in terms of trying to have these discussions. I agree that reaching agreement with the parties is much better than having the board impose details of a maintenance-of-service agreement because the parties understand what is required in the workplace, although sometimes the board does have to intervene and issue an order.
I would also say that once you reach a maintenance-of-service agreement the first time, the hard work is done. Often there aren’t that many changes to the workplace going forward. You already have a foundation that you can use through each round of bargaining. Once the parties in any particular workplace have come to terms on what’s critical, what’s essential and what needs to be provided in terms of a maintenance-of-service agreement, that can be the foundation for the next round of bargaining. Very often, the second time around, you won’t need the 15 days or should not need the 15 days to be able to come to an understanding unless, of course, you’ve seen a massive change in a workplace over a three- to five-year period.
[Translation]
Ms. Abou-Dib: I completely agree that 15 days are not a problem. That’s our experience. The agreement is better when it’s reached between the two parties, the employer and the union. They are the experts. It’s always better for the two parties to reach an agreement rather than have one imposed on them. Everyone agrees on that.
[English]
Senator Lankin: I don’t want to be the only one not to mention how wonderful it is to see the three of you. I go back to the days of Shirley Carr, so there’s been a long period in between, and this is great.
I will ask and let you determine who wants to weigh in. Some of the case studies or examples you brought up are important. Can someone give us a bit more information on the Quebec port and the three-year period of time that has gone on with the use of replacement workers? I would like to get a bit of a feel for that, but I would like you to do it in the context of coming back to the overarching principle here about the right of workers to strike.
The Supreme Court ruling — and I think the part I am referring to was authored by Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella — found that inherent in the freedom of information within our Charter is the right to strike.
The argument we’re looking at here in trying to rebalance the fairness of this system is one that I believe is predicated on the use of replacement workers undermining the real, meaningful right to strike. Could you comment on that? Is there a particular example? I’m interested in the first contract agreement example and whether that is illustrative of undermining the right to strike as held within the definition or the interpretation of freedom of association in the Charter.
Ms. Bruske: I can certainly give you a quick update. Thank you, senator, for raising the Port of Quebec situation because those 81 workers have been locked out by their employer since September 15, 2022. Those workers went to the bargaining table with the intention of reaching a collective agreement and are incredibly frustrated that it’s now summer of 2024 and yet they remain on a picket line.
Some of those workers came to the third reading of this bill in the House of Commons, just a few weeks ago. One worker told me he’s worked there for 40 years, a third-generation worker at that port. He is dismayed that after 40 years of working for that employer, that employer has locked him out, continues to lock him out and continues to not meaningfully come to the bargaining table with a view to actually achieving a collective agreement.
Quite frankly, that is shameful, and that is why this bill is so critically important because all of those workers deserve a fair deal. They want to come to the bargaining table. They want to actually be able to get back to work, to go back into their workplace, and yet they are barred from doing that.
Senator Lankin: If I could just interrupt, am I correct in understanding that this is a situation where, about three years ago, a union was certified and a bargaining unit was created? This was negotiations for a first contract? Effectively, I see the breaking of the union in not being able to get to a first contract. But I’m not sure if I have the facts correct.
Ms. Bruske, can you comment on that?
Ms. Bruske: My understanding is that this was the renewal of a collective agreement. The instance you may be thinking of is an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or IBEW, strike in British Columbia, with the telecommunications firm for a first collective agreement with LTS Solutions. Those workers were on strike for a three-year period of time to achieve a first collective agreement. Again, they would have needed this kind of legislation in order to actually force that employer to be serious.
That employer tried fighting the certification of that group of employees for months and months and months. I don’t think it ever had any intention of truly coming to the bargaining table to actually negotiate in good faith for those 200-plus workers. Three years on a picket line to achieve a first collective agreement was unnecessary.
Senator Brazeau: Good afternoon to all of you. I want to state for the record, up until 10 minutes ago, I was the only man on this committee. I consider myself very lucky because there’s something very special about working with very strong, intelligent and passionate women. I just wanted to say that.
Back to Bill C-58, we heard from the minister and his officials about the fact that the ban on replacement workers would be lifted in situations of health and safety. Is it clear, in your minds, what exactly would constitute an issue of health and safety?
Ms. Abou-Dib: The bill provides that the exception is when there is a critical health and safety issue in a community or the health and safety of an establishment or a community is actually at play.
So in our mind, it means that we’re talking about close to life-and-death situations. We’re talking about risks that can cause grave harm and not the types of exceptions that, for example, cause a corporation to experience instability on the stock market or to create a situation where it might affect the bottom line, a profit margin.
Going on strike is meant to leverage the labour of the workforce in a particular organization, to leverage that labour, to ensure that there is some pressure put on the employer to get back to the table and negotiate a fair collective agreement. The use of replacement workers completely and utterly nullifies that leverage when it is available to an employer. So the only exceptions that could be acceptable are when truly there is a life‑or-death scenario or situation where there is a community in danger — truly a life-or-death situation.
Ms. Payne: Just a couple of thoughts to add to this. We have had many strikes in Canada over many years around the very issue of health and safety. The fact that we have health and safety laws in Canada now as robust as they are is because workers actually did this on a picket line to show the atrocious working conditions they were subjected to.
My point is that workers understand how critically important health and safety is, and so in this discussion of under this legislation what is important in terms of protecting health and safety, they would be the first ones to understand what is categorized as true health and safety and what is potentially being used by an employer to have more workers deemed essential or critical in terms of maintenance of service.
The other thing I would say is the flip side of this is the use of replacement workers can also cause quite an unsafe situation in a workplace. Consider what kinds of workplaces we’re talking about now. They are industrial workplaces. The folks who are working in them are members — Ms. Abou-Dib’s members — who have trained over many years to do these jobs. They know these workplaces inside and out. They are trained in health and safety. Now, all of a sudden, they have to pass security clearances. They have to do this or do that. Then we’re in a situation where we have replacement workers who don’t have to meet any of those tests. This is what is happening in the country right now.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Payne.
Ms. Payne: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: First of all, thank you to all of the witnesses for being here, and I will join my colleagues in sharing that your presence and having broken through the glass ceiling gives me a lot of critical hope that one day we’ll also break through the concrete ceilings that many of us still face. Having said that, I do have a question.
One of my colleagues — I’m not sure who — asked about unintended consequences, and one of the things that I have heard is that one of the unintended consequences could be that there may be greater resistance by employers to the formation of unions in non-unionized workplaces. I wonder if any of you would care to comment about that, please. Thank you.
Ms. Bruske: I would hazard to guess that employers’ resistance will not be swayed by the addition of this bill or not having this particular legislation.
Workers trying to organize will always face resistance. That’s almost 99.9% of the cases given that we have to be aware of and that we have to manage and navigate as workers are deciding to sign a union card. Signing a union card is a very difficult challenge for workers. A lot of fear goes into that decision, and a lot of hope as well at the same time in terms of being able to positively impact their working conditions and to be able to sit as more of an equal with their employers. I don’t think this bill will have any sway in that regard.
Ms. Payne: Senator, thank you for that question. I’m in your beautiful province today, and the sun has been shining for many days right now, which has been great.
I agree with Ms. Bruske, and I would also say that employers who would use replacement workers are likely the same employers who will use the greatest tactics to prevent workers or to try to prevent workers from exercising their freedom of association rights in this country. This is another reason why this legislation is important: to level the playing field and to give a more stable labour relations environment all around.
Ms. Abou-Dib: I concur with my sisters, so go right ahead and ask the next question.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for all three witnesses. Looking at the part of the bill dealing with administrative monetary penalties, we see that the entire process is done by regulations, both the creation of offences and the amounts of the penalties, as well as the degree of proof required. Should this have been included in the bill, rather than done by order in council?
[English]
Ms. Bruske: It is always best to have these kinds of sanctions written into the bill. However, I am confident that the regulations will be able to navigate the sanctions and that it will be enough of a disincentive to contravene this legislation.
[Translation]
Ms. Abou-Dib: I agree with Ms. Bruske. The only thing I would add is that the administrative penalties, or all the work done by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, will require an investment. We’re still calling for an investment in human and financial resources to enforce the law. As far as regulations are concerned, we’re confident that the government’s intentions and the consensus that has emerged supporting the bill will translate into the allocation of the resources and investments needed to enforce it.
Senator Carignan: I was also thinking that there doesn’t seem to be any consultation process for adopting these regulations. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for the government to consult employer and union representatives on the creation of these offences and the processes put in place to prosecute them?
[English]
Ms. Payne: I would say, yes, that we should be consulted. I am sure employers would say that they should be consulted too on this aspect of regulatory reform that will be required to support the legislation.
One way or another, I can guarantee you that we will be having a say, senator. We will ensure our viewpoints are known on the fines and the penalties that should be included with the legislation through regulations.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m glad you’re the one responding on behalf of the folks at Unifor, because when I look at the provisions, I don’t see the union.
We see the employer, we see individuals, but we don’t see the unions that could be penalized for an offence. I don’t suppose you’re worried about that?
Ms. Abou-Dib: We’re not the ones who’ll be looking for replacement workers. This isn’t intended for us.
Senator Carignan: There still could be an upside, since new violations or offences will be created. This leaves room to consider ways to ensure that unions don’t encourage or incite action in violation of the law. Such an offence would be entirely appropriate. However, we don’t see this possibility in the regulatory power provided for in the current legislation.
Ms. Abou-Dib: As for your question about the consultation process, we agree that there should be an opportunity to discuss the regulations, one way or another. Whether it’s about administrative penalties, who will be targeted by those penalties or something else, I think it’s important to have a consultation process, whatever the regulations are.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I just want to express appreciation to all our strong women leaders on this panel. I also wish to tell Ms. Bruske how proud Manitobans are of your national leadership and how votes of trust by members of the Canadian Labour Congress are evidenced by your re-election as their president.
My question is to all panellists. I just want to note that the Montreal Economic Institute told us that Quebec and B.C. already have similar laws, but those provinces have longer and more frequent work stoppages than provinces without such legislation. Yet we have heard positive references from you about Quebec and B.C. Would you like to take this opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by the Montreal Economic Institute?
Ms. Bruske: Senator, first, thank you very much for your kind words. I very much appreciate them.
When it comes to British Columbia and Quebec, both of those provinces have a 30- and 45-year history of having no‑replacement-worker legislation. I don’t draw any conclusions from the fact that they have had this legislation with potentially longer strikes at all, whatsoever. At the end of the day, workers do not want to be on a picket line; they want to be in their workplace. They want to be working. They want to come to a round of bargaining knowing they have a fair chance of actually getting a fair deal that is bargained at the table and is not imposed upon them.
So I don’t make anything of that. I think it is coincidental, quite frankly. I don’t think we should be reading anything into that particular piece of information.
Ms. Payne: Thank you. I would like to add to this because our union conducted a detailed analysis of every dispute we had over a 10-year period, whether it was a strike or lockout, including the length of those disputes and what was occurring. We published a report on that entitled Fairness on the line: The case for anti‑scab legislation in Canada. Our experience at Unifor is that disputes that use replacement workers, whether they are strikes or lockouts, are six times longer in length than disputes where replacement workers are not used.
I can’t imagine any better evidence than to give you an example of a decade of disputes within the largest private sector union in Canada and to be able to reveal that information to you. That is our experience on the line. That is our experience at the bargaining table. That is our experience with decades and decades of doing this work for workers.
Ms. Abou-Dib: If you would allow me to add simply that it is also the Teamsters’ experience in those provinces and at the federal level.
It is really important not to isolate a factor when it comes to lengthy strikes. There are many other things we really should be taking into consideration such as the state of the economy when those lengthy strikes were occurring and other factors that we should not dismiss or take out of context. I would urge us to take that with a grain of salt when we’re studying this issue.
The Chair: I wish to give Senator Carignan a little bit of time back as the critic, but go ahead, Senator McPhedran. One question to one person.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
There has been reference by the panel to the need for rapid and efficient response capacity of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Can I just ask what is needed, or is anything needed, to create that response capacity? Is it more members or an increase in jurisdiction? What is needed to actually make that happen?
Ms. Payne: I would say an increase in some financial resources for the board and also board officers because they will be tasked with doing this work with the parties.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I realize that your report has been published, but can you send it us anyway? If you could also send us the link, so we can find it online, that would be very helpful.
Obviously, the report can be interpreted various ways, but it’s still interesting in terms of statistics.
[English]
Ms. Payne: Absolutely. It is on our website, and we’ll be happy to send it to the entire committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues, and thank you to our witnesses — our three women. We heard the sound of glass shattering. You have helped us a great deal with our study of this bill.
Colleagues, we are resumed on our study of Bill C-58. Joining us today for our third panel, we welcome the following witnesses: Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour; Marty Warren, National Director of the United Steelworkers Union, both in person; and Rob Ashton, President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, by video conference.
I understand that Mr. McGowan, Mr. Warren and Mr. Ashton have prepared comments.
Who would like to go first? Mr. McGowan?
Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour: Sure. Thank you very much.
I’ve travelled to Ottawa today to make an urgent appeal for what I’m calling income repair. Living standards in Canada have taken a beating over the past few years. For many people, wages have not kept up with inflation. That’s making it harder for almost everyone almost everywhere to afford almost everything. In order to restore our living standards, Canadian workers need a raise. In order for that to happen, they need bargaining power.
That brings me to the legislation before us. Bill C-58 is not a silver bullet. By itself, it won’t reverse the erosion of Canadian living standards, but it’s an important tool in the tool kit needed to help Canadians catch up to inflation.
To illustrate why that matters, I want to share with you some results from a province-wide survey that Environics Analytics did for the Alberta Federation of Labour just a couple of months ago. That survey shows that the cost-of-living crisis is hitting my province hard.
Six in ten Albertans say their standard of living has fallen over the past two years. Three quarters say they are worried about the rising cost of living. Among Albertans who describe themselves as middle class, two thirds say they’re worried that the rising cost of living will make them fall out of the middle class.
The situation is even more grim among Albertans who describe themselves as working class. In that group, which constitutes about two thirds of my province’s population, 93% say they are worried the rising cost of living will prevent them from ever moving into the middle class.
A month or so after conducting that survey, we released a report authored by economist Jim Stanford, whom you heard from earlier today. That report, Alberta’s Disappearing Advantage: The Crisis in Alberta Wages, and How to Fix It, shows that Albertans aren’t imagining things when they say their standard of living is declining and that their wages aren’t keeping up with inflation. Real, after-inflation purchasing power for Alberta workers is down 5% since 2018. For public sector workers, it’s down as much 10%. Even wages in our oil and gas sector are not keeping up.
In Alberta, we’ve had the dubious distinction of having the slowest wage growth among all provinces over the past five years and among the highest rates of inflation, even as our corporations, especially in oil and gas, have recorded their highest profits ever.
The result is that the share of the Alberta economy going to wages and other labour compensation has dropped by 8 percentage points over the past five years while the share going to corporations has skyrocketed. In our report, we describe this as a perverse redistribution of wealth, and it is.
When he was the American president in the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said that the best friend of business is a worker with money in his pocket. That’s as true today as it was then.
If we want Canadian workers to have money in their pockets again, then we need policies that bolster worker bargaining power and support wage growth. Allowing employers to use replacement workers is the opposite of that. Employers don’t use replacement workers because they’re concerned about the public interest. They use them to put the screws to their employees.
As a former workplace organizer myself who saw these tactics in action, I can confirm that scabs are a tool of wage suppression, and that’s literally the opposite of what’s needed in our country right now.
On behalf of the 175,000 working Albertans I represent, I urge you to support Bill C-58 and send it back to the House of Commons with no amendments so it can be enacted quickly. Let’s add it to the income repair tool kit and to the weight of precedents that can be used to convince more provincial governments to do the same.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McGowan. Mr. Warren.
Marty Warren, National Director, United Steelworkers Union: Thank you, chair.
Thank you to the clerk and to the members of the committee for the opportunity to join you today. I’m Marty Warren, the Canadian National Director for the United Steelworkers Union. We are the largest private sector union in North America — we are an international union — with more than 225,000 members in nearly every economic sector across Canada, including federally regulated members in rail, telecommunications, airport security and ports.
The United Steelworkers have fought for the federal government to implement anti-scab legislation for decades. Our experience shows that a ban on replacement workers improve labour relations, reduce the length of disputes and lead to better life conditions for workers.
Let’s be clear — nobody decides to go on strike for the fun of it. Strikes and lockouts are tough on workers and on communities. Moreover, the use of replacement workers pits worker against worker, neighbour against neighbour and even family members against each other.
This is a very important part. It can also destroy the future of labour relations for decades and for people to get over. Normally, those making the decisions to bring in scabs, or replacement workers, have long moved on, but the people — the workers, our members still working in the facility — struggle with labour relations for decades.
As you know, anti-scab legislation already exists in Quebec and B.C., and the new Manitoba government has also recently indicated its plans to join the ranks. After years of advocacy from the labour movement, the NDP ensured that anti-scab legislation was included in the Supply and Confidence Agreement, leading to the Minister of Labour tabling the legislation that we have long been asking for.
The United Steelworkers testified on Bill C-58 on three occasions before the Standing Committee on Human Resources last month. I personally testified as well as the Assistant to the Quebec Director, Nicolas Lapierre, and Donna Hokiro, President of our Local Union 1944, which represents our members in the telecommunications sector. We submitted a brief to the committee and made recommendations to amend the bill. Most importantly, we all emphasized the importance of passing legislation banning the use of scabs to protect the constitutional rights of workers as well as the communities to which they belong.
We believe that the House of Commons committee carefully scrutinized the bill and adopted amendments to strengthen it and fill in some of the loopholes. We feel that our recommendations have been considered.
Of course, this bill is not perfect. But as union leaders, we’re used to negotiating collective agreements to improve the living conditions of our members, and we know full well that no collective agreement is perfect. It is one of the key principles of negotiation to reach an agreement that will be to the mutual satisfaction of all parties at the table. We strongly feel that that is the case with this bill. This bill is not perfect, but it is darn good. It is good enough because it will, once and for all, ban the use of scabs during labour disputes, as we see it today with our brothers and sisters and siblings from CUPE at the Port of Quebec, locked out for over 21 months, and from Videotron-Gatineau, locked out for 226 days today.
There is one thing I’d like to put to the members of this committee. Bill C-58 originally proposed an 18-month delay after Royal Assent before the bill comes into force. Like several other unions, we asked that this delay be abolished and that the bill come into force immediately. The House of Commons committee decided to reduce it to one year, and all members of the House of Commons voted in favour of the amendment. That is very satisfactory to us. Of course, we would love it to take effect immediately after Royal Assent, but, again, re‑emphasizing we are comfortable where we’re at.
We respectfully submit to this committee that it should refrain from proposing amendments that would have the effect of imposing new protocol delays on the adoption of this important bill. We would strongly prefer that this committee recommend to the Senate to adopt this bill as is rather than sending it back to the House of Commons with a series of amendments that will further slow down the protection that Canadian workers desperately need, on top of the delay for it in coming into force.
It has taken us decades to get here, and the ball is now in the hands of the Senate to bring us over the finish line.
For the sake of all federally regulated workers, and to set an example for provinces that still fall short, I urge you to please pass Bill C-58 swiftly. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Ashton.
Rob Ashton, President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union: Good afternoon, chair. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to appear before you all today. International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, or ILWU Canada, represents 16,000 workers in B.C. and Saskatchewan in a variety of sectors, primarily the longshore workers that operate the ports on the Pacific Coast.
Bill C-58 finally introduces protection against the use of scab labour during strikes and lockouts. The members of ILWU Canada strongly support Bill C-58, and we urge this committee to wholeheartedly support this bill and pass it without delay.
Strikes are not easy on workers. Workers make the decision to go on strike when their need to fight for better working conditions like job security, wages, safety and fair rules outweigh the financial cost of not working during the strike.
Lockouts are outside of workers’ control and are imposed to damage the solidarity and unity of the workers and to impose a financial burden in the hopes that it will result in workers accepting a lesser deal just to get back to work.
Strikes are a constitutionally protected collective activity because it is accepted that the only way workers can overcome the inequality in bargaining power between them and their employer is for them to join together and collectively bargain. The only way for collective bargaining to be effective is if workers can resort to a strike to put real economic pressure on their employers.
Allowing companies to used scab labour prolong strikes because it allows an employer to operate during a labour dispute, which undermines the worker’s strike and strengthens an employer’s lockout. It tips the balance of power in favour of the employer as it keeps their products moving while workers stand on the picket line without pay. That is contrary to the purpose of a strike protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to balance the unequal power inherent in the employment relationship so that employers and workers can meet on more equal terms to fairly negotiate working conditions.
More significantly, scab labour during a strike turns worker against worker. When scabs cross the picket line, it is understandably disappointing and disrespectful to workers who have made the difficult decision to withdraw their labour at a financial cost in order to achieve better working conditions. Unfortunately, that can and has caused conflict.
A defining moment in history of the longshore division of the ILWU Canada cautions against allowing scab labour. In 1935, scabs were used by longshore employers in an effort to undermine the union of longshore workers. On June 18, 1935, the day known as the Battle of Ballantyne Pier, longshore workers marched to the terminal to encourage workers and allies. These workers and allies were attacked by police and private constables with batons and other weapons. Tear gas was used on the women’s auxiliary aid station. The use of scabs created conditions for violence perpetrated by employers and others against peaceful picketers who were only fighting for a fair collective agreement.
Prohibiting scabs and scab labour promotes safe labour disputes. I ask on behalf of ILWU Canada’s membership that this legislation be passed as fast as possible to ensure workers are able to exercise their rights to a meaningful and safe strike. Thank you.
The Chair: We will go to questions. If I may ask the first question, it’s about the time required, not just to get the CIRB up and running for this legislation, but also about the time required to develop the regulations regarding administrative penalties so employers don’t violate the prohibitions. Do you believe 12 months is sufficient for the development of these regulations?
Mr. Warren: I’m comfortable with 12 months. As I said, we hoped the legislation would come into effect sooner. That was one of the issues raised around why. The first reasoning was 18 months. Twelve months is reasonable. It will take resources and training. I’m very comfortable.
A 12-month period is a lot of time, if resourced properly, to get those individuals in the needed positions with the education they need to make sure this legislation is effective.
The Chair: Anyone else?
Mr. McGowan: I’ll take a crack at that.
I’ve had the honour of serving as the elected President of the Alberta Federation of Labour for 19 years now. In that time, I’ve worked with many different governments on many different pieces of legislation. I’m familiar with the process of regulatory design. It does take months.
A year is reasonable. I think it could probably be done more quickly. I say that because this is a well-canvassed issue. The parties that will be consulted, the parties who have a position already have the position.
We’re not reinventing the wheel here. This is something we in the labour movement have been talking about for literally generations. We’re ready to participate in consultations. You’ve seen from the business side, they are ready as well.
As soon as the starting gun is fired, the meetings will be held. I don’t think that will hold us up. Twelve months is reasonable. I have no doubt that fair regulations can be developed in that time.
The Chair: Mr. Ashton, do you have anything new to add to that?
Mr. Ashton: I agree with the previous two witnesses, chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for appearing before the committee to help us with the study of the bill.
Mr. McGowan, I was surprised to hear that the cost of living increase is hitting Alberta hardest of all. I’m from Nova Scotia. People in Nova Scotia, many move to Alberta for high‑paying jobs.
What has happened? You said oil and gas are making great profits. I know it’s related and not related to the bill. I’m interested in what happened. The fair wages are not there, yet oil and gas are having huge profits.
Mr. McGowan: Yes. Well, in short, the answer is wage suppression from our perspective. That is relevant to the discussion we’re having.
In my opening remarks, I talked about anti-scab legislation as being a tool in a tool kit that’s necessary to grow wages, especially at a time of high inflation and a rapidly rising cost of living.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen the inverse. In Alberta, we have a provincial government that has refused to increase the minimum wage for six years, even though inflation has gone up 18% in that time. Every other province has increased the minimum wage. Alberta has not. They’ve made it harder to join unions. They’ve made it harder to negotiate collective agreements. They’ve even introduced rules that make it easier for employers to avoid paying overtime.
All of these things together, in my estimation, add up to a wage suppression strategy. If another jurisdiction — the federal jurisdiction — introduces anti-scab legislation, that will help put pressure on governments like ours to do what they should be doing during a period of high inflation and a rapidly rising cost of living, that is, to implement rules that will promote wage growth rather than suppress it.
Senator Cordy: All of you can comment. Mr. Warren, you spoke about it. It sounds like everybody would agree with you that replacement workers would lead to better working relationships. Could you comment on how this will work? We’ve heard the comment before. It’s not new. Would you comment on it?
Mr. Warren: First, I start by saying — as I tell most employers, especially some of our biggest — the secret ingredient that is possible, especially with global competition in a competitive Canada and world, is labour relations. That is one of the secret ingredients to being a successful company.
With that as the backdrop, I say that’s why the anti-scab legislation is so important. Whether it be a work stoppage or strike, let’s face it, that’s difficult to begin with. When replacement workers are coming or somebody is doing your work, that puts emotions at a very high level.
The point I was trying to make that I stumbled through a bit, the reality of what happens is, sooner or later, the strike or lockout is settled. It takes decades, sometimes generations, for workers to get over what management did to them, what they did to their families; they brought in replacement workers.
Again, with some of my experience, many times we see, in bigger companies, the CEOs and big managers are moving every three to five years. Somebody who might have made that decision to bring in replacement workers is long gone. But the workers in the community and local management are still there to deal with it decades later. It’s very difficult labour relations.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Ashton, do you have anything to say on that?
Mr. Ashton: Briefly, scabs destroy the relationship between the employers and the workers. Removing them from the equation will obviously improve it.
I’m a rank-and-file member of my union. When I eventually leave office, I go back to working on the docks. If my employer ever tried using scab labour, it would sever any type of relationship for the rest of my time on the waterfront.
A worker always wants to do better because we’re proud of the work that we do, the labour that we do with our hands. But if an employer brings in a scab and says, “You are not worthy of it, and so I’m just going to bring in somebody off the street and stick them in your job,” when I go back to work, what do you think that is going to make me do?
By removing scabs from the picture, it keeps us at the bargaining table, gets us working and then there are no issues when we go back to work because the employer hasn’t done those nasty things to us.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ashton.
Colleagues, we are expecting a bell and votes in the Senate. I am going to scurry us up and be a little bit more diligent on the time so that we don’t interrupt. It is difficult to interrupt and come back. I would prefer to get this done in the time that we have.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Mr. Warren, you said the bill wasn’t perfect, but that it is a first step. What does the bill need to make it perfect?
[English]
Mr. Warren: Yes, the bill isn’t perfect, but what I am here to say is that nothing is perfect. It is like bargaining a collective agreement. There is no perfect collective agreement. There is always some give and take.
Would we like to see the 90 days — it was 87, down a bit — yes. Would we like to see it enacted sooner? Yes, and some clarity issues. All in all, I want to say that it is not perfect, but it is so liveable and it is such a step in the right direction, that’s why I ended by saying, “Please do everything you can to pass the legislation.”
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I heard some examples. You talked about scabs, but I get the sense that you’re talking about areas under provincial jurisdiction. There’s a theoretical aspect to the legislation in relation to the aviation sector.
I don’t think any scabs could step in to replace airline pilots, ship captains or train engineers. On the issue of trans-shipments, I think workers will have a great deal of leverage if supply chains are cut in the event of a strike at ports or train stations.
The use of replacement workers in these situations is rather theoretical. Do you have any examples under federal jurisdiction? Vidéotron comes to mind, and I met some of their employees to consult on this bill. Do you have any examples under federal jurisdiction of the use of scabs that have a negative impact on employees and strike duration?
[English]
Mr. Warren: Yes. Thanks for asking.
Let me give a recent steelworker example in Sorel, Quebec. We have ocean tugboats. We had about 10 to 12 tugboat drivers that were replaced with replacement workers. That strike — work stoppage — lasted nine months because they could bring in workers. That was nine months of 12 people — yes, it was a small number — but they were not able to provide for their families in the community. That is an example.
Because of the makeup of our union, we have a lot of provincial examples, but that’s the most recent one that I could share with you.
Mr. McGowan: Yes, I will give an example, too.
First, I will say that introducing anti-scab legislation at the federal level is important for the provinces; whereas, you know 90% of our workers fall under provincial legislation, but —
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: That was my understanding. That’s the issue.
[English]
Mr. McGowan: Setting a precedent is really important, as is setting an example.
The example that I would give from the Alberta experience is the TELUS lockout of 2005. That was an acrimonious dispute. It lasted for many weeks. It affected the livelihoods of literally thousands of Alberta workers and workers outside of the province, and it lasted as long as it did because TELUS was able to scab the work.
One of the reasons I am really pleased about this legislation is because it doesn’t make a distinction about how you scab the work, whether it is physically or electronically.
That’s what happened in 2005. They basically contracted out the work. They had people outside the jurisdiction — even outside of the country — doing the work. And to the point that has been raised many times before, that undermined the workers’ bargaining power and made a mockery of the right to strike.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Carignan. I’ll give you a tiny bit more latitude.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Let’s talk about telecommunications. How do you plan to deal with the call centre situation? Most of these are outside the country, in India and Morocco, for example. It’s a rather important issue. How do you see this situation?
[English]
Mr. Warren: I see it that they should not be allowed to do it. Let me give the TELUS example. They merged with the United Steelworkers Union approximately 12 years ago. They came to us with 12,000 members. We are probably down to about 4,500 telecoms working with TELUS, as they have contracted out and offshored the work.
Why? Because of this example that Gil McGowan gave. Even more importantly, we are back at the bargaining table, and those were two pieces of collective language we needed to protect the membership, the good-paying jobs and the communities. Our members were so scared because they could scab it out, contract it out and send it overseas.
It was a decent collective agreement in terms of wages and pensions, but those 4,500 workers still feel the threat every day whether they will have a job or not, and, more importantly, this will level the playing field so they have an opportunity to try to bargain some improvements to at least save some of those jobs.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
I have a quick question to Mr. Warren. We are hearing you ask that the bill be passed quickly, but I did read the United Steelworkers’ brief to the House, and it had a recommendation for Bill C-58 to require employers to negotiate with unions for work for conservation purposes, failing which the issue must be determined by the board.
Could you expand on that recommendation for the committee?
Mr. Warren: Well, as we had suggested, and as far as I know, in theory, it is there — that the best two parties to negotiate the conservation of the property of the work is the two parties that know the scalability and what it takes and the community it is within. Then it is my understanding that if not after 15 days, it then goes to a third party to decide, help with or work through with.
Senator Osler: I take it the United Steelworkers Union is content with the language that is currently in the bill?
Mr. Warren: Yes. As I have said, did we look for some additional changes? Yes. But this bill has been a long time coming, we’re extremely satisfied and that’s why we urge you to pass the bill or to send it to the Senate as soon as possible.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Mr. Warren.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much. I actually feel the passion that you have brought to the table to share the experiences of workers’ families and income.
You have spoken about the impacts of replacement workers — let me use that word — on violence, the morale and how it decimates communities. We heard from previous panels, however, that unionization is decreasing across the industrialized world, certainly in Canada. You mentioned globalization and offshoring.
This may not even be in this bill, but will this bill have an impact on trying to shore up unionization? Will it make it easier to have a union?
Mr. Warren: I’ll keep my answer short. I think organizing workers in the unions will always be a challenge, depending on the employer, but I think levelling the playing field and seeing what organized workers can achieve with a level playing field will bring more people to the union.
Mr. McGowan: I’ll answer in two ways. First, I think this legislation is bigger than unions. It’s about all workers because unionized workplaces are bellwethers in the labour market. As I said in my opening remarks, we have a problem of declining living standards, wages are not keeping up with inflation, and so we need champions in the labour market who can negotiate wages to pull themselves up and, in the process, pull everyone else up. That’s always been the role of labour in both the public and private sectors. When we negotiate good agreements, it pulls everyone else up.
Directly to your question about whether this will discourage people from joining unions and if it will make it harder for us to organize, I would argue the opposite. I mentioned that I was an organizer, and one of the things that discourages people from joining unions is fear of confrontation, but if we take replacement workers out of the equation, it gives workers more confidence that they will actually have the bargaining power necessary to negotiate a first collective agreement and negotiate wage increases. That will make them more likely, not less likely, to join unions.
Senator Burey: I was getting at that. I usually want people to say it, not me. You explained that really well. Thank you.
Mr. McGowan: Thanks.
Senator Petitclerc: I have a quick question about some of the things that we have heard in this committee. Thank you so much for your answers. You have been very clear on balance in negotiation and protection of workers, and I really appreciate that.
One of the things that we have heard from different witnesses, and we have been getting a lot of correspondence in our offices with some worrisome letters warning that this bill could have an impact for Canadians when it comes to breakage of production, I suppose. We heard things about losing connectivity on mobiles and impact on Canadians. I just wanted to have your thoughts on that. Is it something Canadians should worry about?
Mr. Warren: Do you want to give Mr. Ashton an opportunity? I was jumping in all the time.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. I would like that as well.
Mr. Ashton: When we were on strike last year for 13 days, all I heard from the media and the employing class is, “You are impacting the country.” I can guarantee that if our employer used scabs, we would probably still be on the picket line right now.
We were out for 13 days. If a 13-day strike affects the Canadian economy so bad that it is going to destroy the economy — because that’s all the employer class was saying, that it would destroy the economy — then our economy is in pretty bad shape if a strike can destroy it or if a strike can hamstring the people of this country.
We have to remember that it was a strike out of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, or CUPW, negotiations a couple of decades ago that got every single Canadian in this country maternity and paternity leave. The ability for the working class to stick up for themselves without fear of their employers running roughshod over them, using scabs — and scabs is the right word, not replacement workers. Scabs is the right word. Once that fear is alleviated and we’re all on a level playing field at the bargaining table, we can get better things for our members and also for all Canadians in this country. So a little hiccup in the economy, the supply chain or whatever you want to call it or being unable to get a text message right away is a sacrifice I am willing to make, and I know every one of my members and their family members are willing to make because of what we can get for all Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Ashton, I have a question for you. We heard earlier today about the situation with the strike of the Port of Quebec, which has been ongoing for many months. Replacement workers are being used, I understand. From your point of view, when this legislation is passed — and imagine the strike is still going on 12 months from now — what will change in that very conflicted situation?
Mr. Ashton: I think that is a question for my lawyer, to be honest with you, or for CUPE’s lawyer, to be more specific.
If the anti-scab legislation were in place before those workers were put on the street, that dispute wouldn’t be going on right now. They would all be back to work. It is the use of scabs that are keeping those workers, who live and pay taxes in that community, on the street. We need this passed today and moved on.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ashton.
Colleagues, I see no more questions, and there is the bell. I wish to thank our witnesses sincerely for your perspective and your passion. This brings us to the end of this last panel.
Our next meeting on Bill C-58 — it is not over yet — will take place tomorrow at 4:15 p.m. in this same room. As a reminder, we are meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50 at 6:45 p.m. tomorrow, and for this Bill C-58 on Thursday at 11:30. Please contact the Law Clerk for any amendments if you have not done so already, and I encourage you to share your drafted amendments and observations in both official languages with the clerk of the committee. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)