:
I call the meeting to order.
Committee members, welcome again this morning.
Welcome to Madame Gladu, who is joining us this morning for today's meeting.
The clerk has advised me that all of the virtual witnesses have been sound-tested, and they have been approved.
We have a quorum.
Welcome to meeting number 124 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to House of Commons rules.
As I was indicating, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. According to House of Commons procedures, witnesses and members can appear virtually. Today all the members are in the room. We have witnesses who are appearing virtually.
We have a couple of rules. You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation services are available through the mics. If you're appearing virtually, please click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the official language of your choice. If there is an interruption in translation, please get my attention by raising your hand in the room or by using the “raise hand” icon for those appearing virtually, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.
I would remind all members to wait until I recognize them before speaking. Again, to get my attention, simply raise your hand or use the “raise hand” icon.
I also want to remind members, with regard to all their devices, to please turn off any alarms that could go off routinely. There was an incident at our last meeting. This is for the protection of the interpreters. As well, please refrain from tapping on the microphone boom. It does cause sound issues for the interpreters, and we do not want to do that.
Before we go to the witnesses, I want to clarify something. At the conclusion of Tuesday's meeting, Ms. Zarrillo moved a motion at committee. The meeting adjourned before there was a clear direction on that particular motion.
I want to advise members on the motion that was moved by Ms. Zarrillo. There is a procedure for that, given that the motion that was introduced without 48 hours' notice was on the subject matter that the committee was studying, but the precedent on that is that it must be rather general. My interpretation was that the study was on unionized wages in general, in a broad category, versus non-unionized. The motion addressed a change to a specific item. Therefore, I would rule it as non-admissible at that time. Given that, the motion has now been on for 48 hours, so Ms. Zarrillo would have the ability to move it as she chooses.
I raise that because I just want to advise members that I will continue with that precedent decision on motions that may be introduced without a 48 hours' notice on a related study, given the fact that it doesn't kill the motion. The 48-hour rule is the one that's been accepted and used, and that's the one that will take priority.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, February 26, 2024, the committee resumes its study on compensation disparities between unionized and non-unionized workers in Canada.
I would now like to welcome the witnesses. We have Tristen Wybou, executive vice-president of the BC General Employees' Union, by video conference. From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president, and D.T. Cochrane, senior economist, by video conference. From the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers—District 140, we have Dan Janssen, general chairperson, who is with us in the room. From UA Local 663, we have Scott Archer, business agent.
We'll begin with Ms. Bruske.
Ms. Bruske, you have up to five minutes. The floor is yours, please.
Greetings and good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Bea Bruske, and I am the president of the Canadian Labour Congress.
The CLC is the country's largest central labour body, bringing together more than 50 national and international unions. We represent more than three million working people in Canada.
The CLC will be providing a detailed written submission in the days ahead, but for the moment, here are my comments.
I've been a trade unionist my entire adult life, and I know from direct experience that unionized workers enjoy more rights, higher wages and better benefits, but the goal of unions is the advancement of all workers through a strong labour movement and through high union density. By forming unions and bargaining collectively, unions reduce the power imbalance in the workplace and in the broader economy. On their own, most workers are at a huge power disadvantage with their employer, but when they join together, workers can build solidarity and collective power, and that's the basis from which to negotiate with powerful corporations and employers.
By organizing, unions promote inclusion, equality and security, which reduces division, resentment and political instability. Unions are crucial for advancing rights for women, workers of colour, people living with disabilities, gig workers, migrant workers and other historically disadvantaged workers who have been excluded from accessing these rights. Workers gain effective access to important legal rights through their union and their collective agreement. That includes protection against discrimination in employment, promotion and layoff, and the right to grieve management's arbitrary decisions.
Make no mistake: Formal, statutory rights for workers for things like employment standards laws are vitally important, but too often they are weak, inaccessible and slow to adapt to changing work environments.
Without unions, employers are free to pocket 100% of the gains from productivity or to distribute them solely to shareholders. Unions demand that employers share a portion of productivity gains with workers, and they insist that firms redistribute portions of economic rents. Unions also compress wages within firms, bringing up wages at the bottom faster than compensation for top earners, thereby reducing inequality.
Unions also make work sites safer. A study from the Institute for Work and Health shows that unionized companies in Ontario's construction sector have significantly lower injury rates.
Unions help close wage and employment security gaps for the most precarious workers. For example, one in five early career workers is in a temporary position, but among these young temporary workers, those in the union earn 31% more per hour than their non-unionized counterparts.
Racialized workers face more challenges in the labour market. However, researchers with the Canadian Centre for Future Work found that the incomes of racialized workers in the union are more than $3,200 higher per year.
Regardless of whether they're employed in the private sector or the public sector, unionized workers are much more likely to have disability insurance, extended health coverage, maternity and parental leave top-ups and other benefits. Statistics Canada recently found that four in five unionized workers have access to a workplace pension, while just 36% of non-unionized workers do.
Unions lift wages and conditions for unionized employees, but also for non-unionized workers, and they do so through the “union threat” effect. Non-union employers commonly match the terms and conditions negotiated in unionized plants in a bid to fend off organizing drives and to stay non-union. Non-union employers match unionized employers to reduce recruitment and retention pressures that come from inferior wages and conditions.
Unions also work to generalize gains won through collective bargaining to the broader workforce. Paid sick leave and paid leave time for victims of domestic violence are very good recent examples. Before being enshrined in legislation, these protections were already negotiated in many collective agreements. Unions demand paid sick leave, paid domestic violence leave and affordable, high-quality child care for all workers in every province and territory, and we are still fighting that fight.
We know that unions don't benefit just members. The wages and benefits that unions negotiate strengthen local economies and fund high-quality public services. Unions are the leading providers of skills training and vocational education in Canada as well.
Internationally, countries with strong labour movements have greater wage equality and stronger social programs and public services. In Canada, more workers than ever want to access unions. We need all governments to remove barriers standing in the way of workers who want to access being part of a union. After all, the freedom to form unions and engage in collective bargaining is a charter right in Canada and is protected under international law.
Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.
:
I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to share my experiences as an airport worker on the need for better protections for workers subject to the RFP or request for proposals procurement process, referred to as contract flipping, and the need for living wages in aviation.
My name is Dan Janssen, general chairperson with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The IAMAW represents 40,000 workers in Canada. Our airport members perform work at Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat, Swissport, Menzies, and many other smaller service providers.
I'm a 24-year Air Canada employee, working below the wing. I got involved in my union after speaking up about safety issues at Toronto Pearson. I quickly realized that reporting safety issues and addressing them in a workplace as large as Pearson was very empowering.
I've been involved in the labour movement at Pearson for 13 years. I am a former co-leader of the Toronto airport workers council. I co-founded the Toronto Pearson worker health and safety forum, a groundbreaking workplace-wide safety committee. This safety model is being shared with other airports around the world by both the GTAA and the International Transport Workers' Federation. I've received an Eye on Safety award from the airport authority for improving safety culture, and I was involved with “$15 and fairness”, which helped 1.5 million workers when the Ontario minimum wage jumped to $14 per hour.
Aviation is a high union density sector, which has a positive effect on all workers, although workers employed by many service providers earn wages only slightly above or at minimum wage. Unionized workers enjoy the protections and values of having a contract in place. For non-union workers, wages may be comparable; however, some employers deduct the costs of benefits and parking, impacting their overall earnings.
One of my senior stewards, Francis, has worked for two decades at Pearson, providing wheelchair service to passengers. Because of contract flipping, he's had multiple employers and has had to start all over again each time the contract changed hands, except for the last time. That contract was awarded effective September 1, 2019, the same day successorship rights came into effect in the code. For the first time, Francis kept his 2015 seniority date and was able to make gains based on a portion of his previous experience.
There is a contract flip happening at Pearson right now. The GTAA has a tender out for baggage-handling work performed by IAMAW members at TBH services. This contract expires 28 days from today's date, on October 22, 2024, and there has been no confirmation about the successful bidder. Imagine not knowing whether, in 28 days, you will be working with your current employer or a new employer, or whether you will even have a job moving forward. TBH workers have expressed frustration with not knowing what will happen. Workers have literally broken down in my office due to the emotional toll the situation is causing.
The lack of a proper notice period is concerning and should be addressed by legislating that the RFP process provides no less than a 16-week requirement for notice of the successful bidder. This would align the timelines with the group termination provisions of the code.
MP 's private member's bill, Bill , would also be impactful. This would ensure that workers maintain the same collective agreement and union whether or not the employer changes. These protections should be enacted quickly by supporting this bill and passing it during the current session of the House. For TBH workers, whose bargaining agreement expires on October 31, Bill would provide peace of mind, knowing that their CBA is protected and their union will remain in place.
The GTAA released the Pearson standard in April 2023. Section 2.20.2 states:
Ensure that their employees have access to a safe working environment and earn a fair wage that allows them to afford adequate shelter, food, and other necessities.
Unfortunately, many service contract workers earning low wages struggle to afford the necessities.
The IAMAW is pushing for a living wage for all airport workers. A change.org living wage petition started by an IAMAW representative has nearly 9,900 signatures. I have an active House of Commons petition, e-5050, calling for an airport living wage. It is my understanding that the GTAA is lobbying the labour program and Transport Canada for an airport minimum wage. Airport workers deserve fair wages. Their work is essential to the safe operation of Canada's aviation transportation sector. They deserve a better minimum standard.
In conclusion, I am seeking help for my co-workers. Bill could pass in this session of the House. Legislation for an RFP notice period should align with the group termination provisions, and the minimum standard should be no less than living wages for all airport workers.
Thank you.
Thank you, committee members.
I'm Scott Archer, business agent of UA Local 663, the pipefitters, plumbers and welders union in Sarnia, Ontario. I'm appearing today in place of my boss, friend and mentor, Brother Kayle McDonald, who is our business manager at Local 663. He is, regrettably, in the U.S. at present for a prior engagement, and not able to attend.
I'm here to represent our nearly 1,700 local members and the roughly 3,500 family members who depend upon them to provide a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. Additionally, we're part of the UA's Canadian membership, which is 53,000 strong. There are 370,000 members across North America.
To start, I'd like to express our thanks for being invited to speak here today and for being afforded the opportunity to have our voices heard.
First, I'd like to speak to the issue of wage disparity between union and non-union workers in this province. Unions, as you know, have long been the champion of the underdog and the source of a higher quality of life for working-class families.
This is not some new, mysterious process. It's achieved the same way it has been since the 1800s, and since the landmark Oshawa General Motors union movement of 1937, which was in fact spurred by the Sarnia Holmes Foundry labour movement two weeks prior to that. It's achieved through the strength of fair bargaining made possible by unions, with many individuals coming together to collectively forge a stronger bargaining position as a cohesive group. It allows the working man a more level playing field to negotiate things that society now takes for granted, such as a fair wage, safer working conditions and a 40-hour workweek. These advances in human rights would never have been possible for the individual worker were it not for their union brothers and sisters coming together to make it happen. Those stickers you see on our hard hats are absolutely true: “Unions: The people who brought you the weekend”.
What appears at first glance to be a fairly impressive wage package is, in fact, a considerably larger amount than what the union worker takes home at the end of each week. A sizable percentage of union wages actually goes to support and protect our families, in the form of weekly contributions to things like medical and dental benefits, carefully curated pension plans and death benefits for our spouses and families. These are all things that we have worked hard to develop and nurture in the interest of keeping our loved ones safe, healthy and financially secure during hard times.
It's been proven time and time again that unions also serve a greater purpose to society in general by motivating non-union employers to provide safer, better working conditions, raise the prevailing wage as non-union employers strive to attract employees by providing wages that are competitive with the union workforce, and drive non-union employers to initiate contribution matching-style retirement plans, whereby the employer matches a percentage of the monies put into an RRSP by the worker. This is still a far cry from union pension plans, but it is an attempt by some employers to remain competitive in the labour market.
In reality, unions really have done the heavy lifting that has provided an enhanced quality of life for nearly everyone in our society through a trickle-down effect.
If time allows today, there are a few other key issues impacting our workforce that I'd like to bring to the committee's attention as well.
This past summer, UA Local 663 in Sarnia had nearly 300 members on our out-of-work list. These highly trained welders, steamfitters, plumbers and apprentices were unable to procure employment, while one of the most heavily government-subsidized projects in history employed temporary foreign workers just down the road at the Stellantis battery plant in Windsor. We encourage both the federal and provincial governments to continue supporting these types of projects, which will ensure that Canadian energy needs are met in the future. However, they must come with the requirement of Canadian workers building these projects. We would also encourage project labour agreements or, at the very least, prevailing wage policies to ensure that these massive government investments equate to good-paying jobs for Canadian families.
I can't stress enough the importance of UTIP grants—the union training and innovation program—which allow us to improve and continue our union training programs. These are programs that allow us to continue to supply the most highly trained workforce in Canada. Expanding these grants to include bricks and mortar investment would also allow building trades unions to increase much-needed training space and ensure the continued success of our training programs well into the future. When local unions are investing in the future of their members by building, renovating or expanding their training centres, we often run into issues with financing these projects through private sector banks. The Government of Canada could also offer financing options for these projects, streamlining the construction process and putting more highly skilled workers on construction projects faster.
My final concern to bring forward to you today is the need for government support for emissions reduction projects in the petrochemical industry. While we all want to combat climate change, we need to ensure that the government supports not only new construction but also emissions reduction projects in existing facilities. The petrochemical sites of Sarnia-Lambton can continue to secure the energy needs of Ontario and beyond. However, government support is needed to ensure that the client owners of these sites invest in their assets in Ontario, instead of closing them down, and that emissions reduction goals are set on realistic and workable timelines with government support.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I owe everything that my family and I have to being a union member—every family vacation we've ever taken, every memory of my children’s smiles on Christmas morning, the ability to care for them in an adequate manner and provide them with a comfortable home in a safe neighbourhood, where they could grow and flourish and eventually raise children of their own. You can see us in February about that last one—my wife and I are very excited about being first-time grandparents.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for your time today. I look forward to answering any questions or providing any insight that I can.
:
Thank you for having me here today.
I just want to take a moment to very quickly introduce myself. I will translate right after.
[Witness spoke in Sm'algya̱x and provided the following text:]
Tristen di waayu, Ts'msyenu, G_a_nhada di pdeegn ada Kxeen di wil 'waatgu.
[Witness provided the following translation:]
My name is Tristen. I'm Ts’msyen, and my clan is the Raven. I come from a small town up north here in B.C. called Prince Rupert.
[English]
I was thinking about what to say here for quite a while, and all I ended up preparing was a couple of speaker notes. The thing that sat in my notepad for the longest time was simply to remember who was really, truly a friend and what was there when you needed it. That has been my experience as a union member.
I started as a councillor in a BCGEU-certified job when I was quite young. At that time, I was still being granted the patience and the grace to learn things as I was getting going, to be introduced as a new union member, to join the local executive and to eventually get involved with my labour council. During all of that, in the background were many colleagues I hadn't yet met who fought for things like a low-wage redress, which significantly supported my own income at a time when I greatly needed it as I was going through things like medical transition and mental health concerns resulting from a long series of intergenerational traumas in my community and in my family and home.
What I learned from much of that experience back then was that the union is where the people who look out for you are. It's where folks invite you to a barbecue. It's the place where people come and help you pack up when you decide you need to move at the last minute and think you can do it entirely by yourself. I enjoyed much of my experience then learning that, as I was growing and adjusting, there were so many people fighting alongside me for the things that I needed to get through when I was young and new and fresh to start and that I did not know would be as important as I know them now.
I later ended up moving down to the Lower Mainland, where I live now, and I unionized my work site down here for a small non-profit. Coming in, I knew at that point already that my livelihood was meant to come from a unionized work site and that this is where I would receive gainful employment. As someone with disability, it's imperative to me that my job security is protected, that there are anti-discrimination policies in place and that I have a say in the structure of the conditions around my work.
We unionized to lock in much of the compensation that we already had, knowing that we wanted people doing equal work, out of the gate, as soon as they came in, to receive equal pay and benefits. We wanted to address wage parity. We had means of making sure our voices were properly heard when doing the work that impacted other communities, and we represented ourselves with doing the work that we knew we needed. Ultimately, however, what we truly came to together, upon coming down here, was realizing that the folks you organize with are the people who extend beyond just a contract.
Unionism is the collective bargaining regime. It is coming out of the law of contracts and coming into something where you have a little bit more equal say in power, but it's also about working to see your communities strive, smile and thrive. It's those whose labour upholds everything, and yet they find themselves still at the mercy of their paycheque at the end of each couple of weeks.
Worker power has the ability to secure equal pay for equal work. Worker power and solidarity have the strength to carry you forward when you need to fight for change so that you can do what matters in a way that's safe, that's accessible, that's informed and that keeps us up with the costs of what it truly takes to keep you going, whether that's spiritual, emotional, financial or physical.
I want to leave it there and keep it short and sweet. I'm so grateful for the other witnesses on this panel saying so much of what I had percolating in my head about the way in which unions can stand against things like two-tiering and the way in which we can stand and protect our fellow members against things like contract flipping. There are so many important things that have come to benefit all of us, unionized or not, as a rising tide raises all ships alongside it.
What I ultimately would like to impart is the knowledge that, as one big union all together, people, as workers, have the power to invoke change and make sure that all of us get home from work safely at the end of the day and keep it so that one job is enough.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Archer, I want to start a conversation with you.
I'm the proud father of a union son whose life got immeasurably better when he started working for a company that was unionized, so I agree with everything you say about how unions make working conditions better.
You mentioned the Stellantis battery plant and some of the challenges happening with employment. Yes, unions provide better wages, except when government policy ends up losing union jobs. Then there are no wages, so it's not actually a better wage. Policy has so much of an implication on that.
One of the things I heard is that the lack of unions at the table when those large government investments were negotiated for those plants has led to the conditions where there are, in fact, workers coming from other countries to perform the work that our skilled union members could do. I wonder if you could speak about how your being at the table matters, and whether you raised these concerns with the government.
:
Dan, I want to quickly switch to you and talk about the issue of contract flipping. It's very interesting, and it's great to see you again in order to talk about the issue of contracts.
One thing I want to say is this. You talked about 's private member's bill. Unfortunately, it's not before the House of Commons. It won't be tabled for second reading until sometime in the spring session. He has seven other private member's bills that have been put forward, so we don't even know whether this bill is going to be the one he moves forward with. There's very little chance of it being passed in this Parliament.
One of the things on contract flipping that I looked at is this: Section 47.3 of the Canada Labour Code eliminated contract flipping for those in the security aspect of being at the airport. It says in there that the Minister of Labour, on a recommendation to the Governor in Council, can add other areas to that. The government could have done this seven years ago. In fact, the NDP government.... They were part of that. They could have required it to be done, simply, by OIC.
Do you think that would be a great way to get it done?
Good morning to my colleagues.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming in today.
I remember coming home in 1988. I had my first job, at Canada Packers. My salary at that point was $20,000. I remember coming in the door, talking to my dad and telling him that I made $20,000. He had this blank look on his face: “You're making $20,000?” I said, “Yes. Dad, you've worked at a non-unionized place for 40 years, so what do you make?” Dad, at that point, was making $15,000. I dug into it at that point, and I realized very quickly that although he had a steady job, he had no benefits. He had two weeks' vacation after 40 years, no health plan and no pension plan, nothing. I did some comparison of other plants where he could have worked and quickly realized that he could have made a lot more.
We're doing this study, and I'll read part of the motion: “unionized workers receive more powerful paycheques; the impact of unionization on benefits and pensions; and the reasons behind such disparities”. That's what this study is about. We're here to study unionization: why companies that have unions pay better and do better. We always say that union wages set wages for the middle class.
Mr. Archer, my question is for you. I also want to thank you for your comments on the union training and innovation program. We've had some wonderful announcements in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay on UTIP, with the Heat and Frost union, IBEW and others. It's a wonderful program.
I do want to get your thoughts and comments. A Stats Canada labour force survey in 2023 confirmed that unionized workers made an average of $35.73 per hour in 2023, compared to $32.60 for workers who weren't unionized. That's a big difference. It's a difference of $3.13. You're probably not surprised by that, but does that align with your experience and what you've seen?
When I was going door to door in 2015, there wasn't a unionist.... Saint John—Rothesay is a very unionized city. It's a blue-collar town. There wasn't a unionist household that I went to that didn't talk about Bill and Bill . Obviously, I had to quickly learn what Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were. To call a spade a spade, they were obviously union-busting bills on redundant and unreasonable reporting, and difficulty forming or joining unions.
Obviously, there was a call for our government to reverse Bill and Bill , which we did. I'm very proud of that.
My question is for you, Ms. Bruske. Can you just give us some comments and thoughts about Bill and Bill , and how detrimental they were to unions in Canada?
Thank you.
Good day, everyone.
I want to thank the witnesses with us today, as well as those who preceded them last week, when we started this study.
Before entering politics, I was a union leader for over 30 years. When this study was proposed, I had my doubts. All the witnesses today are repeating what others have told us: there are advantages to being a union member. This has been amply demonstrated, and no one questions it, except those on the right, who wonder what the point of unions is. In this respect, testimony from today and previously are clear. I don't know if our committee needed a study to bring this to light, but it will be.
Mr. Janssen, when I was just starting out as a Bloc Québécois MP, we were called upon to mobilize on behalf of maintenance employees at the Montreal airport, in a situation where contracts were being overturned. It's a totally unacceptable situation because, in my opinion, it's dismissals in disguise. A new call for contracts is issued, the same people are rehired at an hourly wage cut by $10 to $20, and their minimum rights under the collective agreements are not renewed. This was the first battle on this file, and the current government's Minister of Labour was very sensitive to the issue.
Do you believe this kind of practice is an obstacle to freedom of association or unionization?
:
Thank you for your question, Ms. Chabot.
It can be an obstacle, yes. I believe there's always an opportunity for an airport authority to flip a contract and have it go to a non-union employer. At the end of the day, the rights that those unionized members had under the collective agreement would no longer be there, which would mean that the new employer would be able to change the terms and conditions of employment following the contract flip. Previously, before the equal remuneration rates came into effect, it was considered a race to the bottom. Where employees may have made gains over five to 10 years, once the contract was flipped, they had to start all over again.
Thankfully, we've come a long way, but there is still more work to do. Again, I believe that maintaining the collective agreement and the rights of the union would successfully protect members who are subject to contract flipping.
:
I congratulate you on your efforts in this field. The IAMAW's contribution is important, whether in aerospace or aviation. As we know, this field is not always the government's priority. But working conditions often match the importance attached to a given sector of our economy. This is a very important one. So you're fighting on two fronts, and I congratulate you for it.
Ms. Bruske, the Canadian Labour Congress brings together unions from across Canada and Quebec. You bring together major unions. You mentioned all the advantages of unionization, and I agree with you on that. We could even name others.
That said, you also talked about the obstacles to unionization. In Canada, the public sector is highly unionized. On the other hand, we can observe a decline in unionization in the private sector.
Furthermore, one of the important role of unions is also to give a voice to those without one.
Could you tell us about obstacles to unionization that you are seeing?
:
Thank you for the question.
Unionizing is very difficult for workers. It is fraught with anxiety and fear about what the process will do and the disharmony it may cause when employer interference is part of that equation.
Unfortunately, we've seen many regressive governments across the country—provincial and territorial governments—change how workers can unionize by requiring more than a simple signing of union cards and also requiring an additional step by having a follow-up vote.
When we elect politicians, we ask once for people's voice on that. When we choose to become unionized, it's often a two-step process across this country, where workers have to make the decision to, first, sign a union card, and then, after a certain period of time, to go and vote. That gives the employer many opportunities to run interference and to provide all kinds of inappropriate context and feedback to those workers, creating a lot of fear and division within that workplace while this process is under way. That is what we see time and time again.
What it's going to take to get more workers unionized is good legislative action requiring simply the signature of a union card and having a majority of those workers choose to actually gain a bargaining opportunity with their employer.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
In response to MP Long's misleading remarks, the Conservative leader has been very clear, and publicly on the record, that a Conservative government will not allow, nor permit to be passed, bills like Bill and Bill . I just want to make sure that's on the record. I think it's been mentioned more than once in this committee what is actually on public record, and there have been attempts to mislead that.
I come from a union household. My father works in the energy sector. I'm from Saskatchewan in western Canada, so I am very familiar with the benefits that being part of a union has, not only for an individual family but also for the community, including younger kids. I know that my dad's local union, for many years, was giving scholarships to kids going into the trades or whatnot. I think that's a very important aspect to also highlight.
Mr. Archer, I want to congratulate you on becoming a grandparent for the first time. I hear it's more fun. I'm not there yet, but I hear it's more fun. Congratulations.
I do want to focus on some of your opening comments regarding the Stellantis battery plant in Windsor. The 's offer of $44 billion in taxpayer money to a massively profitable corporation didn't even come with a promise of jobs for Canadian workers, or that it would create those jobs. In my opinion, it's a slap in the face to not only Canadian taxpayers but also Canadian workers. I believe we have the skill and the talent to build Canada, to build the things that Canadians want and that Canadians need. When the news of the 900 foreign workers was breaking, we heard excuses from the government that these replacement workers were needed, as they were contributing a specialized skill set that was needed.
From your perspective, do UA Local 663 members and our Canadian labour force have the skills and the specialized knowledge that would fill these roles and that could fill these roles?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.
I want to thank all of our witnesses today. It's been a really good conversation. In fact, the witnesses on the previous occasion were also very valuable. Thank you for being here and speaking on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of organized labour.
I'm a big supporter of unions. When I first got to the Toronto District School Board, in 2003, we were trying to fix a lot of the damage that common-sense Conservatives did in Ontario to the education system. The last time common-sense Conservatives had power in the province, there was a complete dismantling of public education, to such a degree that we saw more than half of the school days gone because of that labour disruption.
We've had members here talk about the ' track record on the relationship with organized labour. The fact is that when Bill and Bill were brought into the House of Commons by the Conservatives, the leader of the Conservatives voted in favour of those bills. So it's not what he's going to do now; we just need to look at the track record of Conservatives to really understand what may happen in the future.
But here we are today, and the reason we're studying this specific topic is to let parliamentarians know and to let Canadians know that when we put in good legislation to support unions—and I think one witness said, “good legislative action”—it allows us to build a better workforce and increase productivity, but most importantly, it allows for families, for workers, to be protected and to have better-paying jobs. I want to take this opportunity to thank unions for weekends, for holidays, for workplace rules that prevent certain types of injuries, for child labour laws and for pensions. There are so many elements that come from organized labour, and I want to say thank you. I want to be on the record saying thank you for the work that folks do every day to preserve unions.
My big question—and maybe I'll go to you, Mr. Archer—is about what we can do to build on good legislative action in the House of Commons as parliamentarians to better support unions and to make sure, at the end of the day, that we get the legislation right, from all parties, and that we can continue, especially as the economy is changing. We're seeing fewer unionized jobs in certain sectors and a decline in unionized jobs. What can we do to strengthen unions in Canada?
It's disappointing to see the Liberals and the Conservatives continuing to team up to shut down really important conversations around workers in this country.
I want to thank all of the witnesses today. I appreciate all the outstanding work that all of you do.
I, too, wanted to follow up on a motion that I brought at the last committee meeting, when we heard about the detrimental impact of contract flipping on workers. As I said last time, we as parliamentarians must do what we can to protect workers from contract flipping. We heard about it again today.
Notice has been given, so I move:
That in the opinion of the committee the Canadian Labour Code be amended to close a loophole that annuls existing labour contracts or collective agreements when there is a change of employer for subcontractors working at Canadian airports by implementing amendments outlined in NDP PMB C-330 titled An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (successor rights and obligations—airports), and that the committee report this to the House.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
I think my colleague Mr. Coteau is caught in the past. I want to bring him up to date. Ten days ago, the Conservative leader said, “A Common Sense Conservative Government will not introduce or pass bills C-377, C-525 or right to work laws. Period. This commitment will be written in my election platform.” That's good news.
I want to start with questioning Scott Archer.
Let me brag a little bit about the trades in Sarnia—Lambton. There are 5,000 skilled trades jobs that are the envy of North America and perhaps the world in terms of their quality, their productivity and their safety performance.
Mr. Archer, you outlined a few of the concerns that you have about threats to receiving ongoing powerful paycheques, like temporary foreign workers and some of the difficulty getting funding for apprenticeships. Are there other things that you think are threatening the health of union jobs in your area?
The government is intending to replace your union plans. I just wanted to get on the record that that wasn't a good idea.
Let me talk again about the Stellantis facility and the other battery plants. There's been $55 billion of taxpayer money put in to create what turns out to be about 3,000 jobs for Canadians. If you do the math on that, you should have just given people the money and they'd never have to work again.
What do you think should be done to ensure that, going forward, all government contracts protect Canadian jobs? We've heard comments from the Stelco workers about not including Chinese steel in Canadian contracts like they do. Would you have any advice, Mr. Archer, for future contracts?
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.
First of all, let's be crystal clear about what pharmacare is from the government's perspective.
In what I have read in the legislation, and in what the government has also said on the matter publicly or privately in discussions that have happened within our caucus, there's been nothing about taking away benefits from anybody. That is not the view of the government. I could go back and talk about how Conservative friends across the aisle wanted to move retirement or OAS eligibility from 65 to 67. That's on record. We know that was a fact.
However, Mr. Chair, I do want to begin my questions with Ms. Bruske.
Ms. Bruske, how critical are union dues for the functioning of unions and members?
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
I have a couple of questions for Mr. Archer that are directly related to the topic of the study here today.
You advocated previously calling for the Line 5 pipeline to remain in operation. You called on the to reach out to the American government on behalf of “citizens of Canada, skilled tradespeople, and the families who depend upon the oil and gas industry to provide their livelihood and sustain their quality of life”. In your opening statement today, you talked about a recent point in time when 300 of your members were on an out-of-work list.
My first question for you is this: When it comes to the oil and gas industry, have the choices of the current Liberal government—whether it be killing pipelines like energy east and northern gateway, or restricting the ability to get oil and gas projects approved through unconstitutional red tape like Bill —negatively impacted those tradespeople and workers and their families, who rely on the oil and gas industry for their livelihoods?
:
Thank you very much for that. I really appreciate that, and I appreciate the personal aspect as well, because we know that these types of stresses are really hard on families, so thank you very much for sharing that.
The other thing I wanted to ask you on this is about how governments will talk about re-skilling workers. In particular, with this just transition plan, this document talks about re-skilling to other positions, such as janitor as an example, which is an important job and a very respectable job, but may or may not have the same compensation, whether it's union wages or benefits.
I'm wondering if you have seen, with some of this re-skilling, when different positions have been lost and there's a re-skilling of a position, whether it's always comparable. Is it unionized? Is it the same pay? Does it have the same benefits? Are there concerns that this really isn't what might be happening?
My wife was born in Windsor. She had to endure some of the very difficult times when the auto industry was failing, and her family is still there now. They say that Windsor is alive and well and bustling as a result of these investments, so I think we need to put this into a proper perspective, that things are moving along well for Windsor as a result of the government's decision to support the auto industry and the shift in the auto industry.
However, that's not my question.
We did a study here in this committee that talked about artificial intelligence and its impact on the workforce, and it had a number of significant recommendations. With the emerging trends with artificial intelligence, with gig work and remote work, how do you feel that will impact unionization rates, as well as compensation? What do you see would be the role of the union going forward as technology has its impact on the industry?
That question is for Ms. Bruske.
:
Thank you for that important question.
We certainly have seen significant changes in the workforce over the last number of years with AI, with gig work, with technological changes. The most critical thing for us as union workers is to make sure that we have a seat at the decision-making tables about our future. That means we need to be consulted in a meaningful way when it comes to these changes that we're experiencing in various sectors.
Therefore, I was very heartened to see the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act recently passed, which actually gives workers a seat at the decision-making tables as we deal with some of the challenges of getting to net zero and moving jobs into a clean economy type of situation.
More specifically, with regard to gig work and AI, we need to look at some legislative priorities in terms of how we manage those particular issues. The definition of what a worker is no longer really fits with the new gig economy that we have. Is that worker in fact employed, or is that worker a freelance person? We haven't caught up in our provincial, territorial and federal governments in terms of how we actually define “workers” and what rights, privileges and benefits they actually have under existing legislation, so that has to be a very high priority for us to ensure that those workers also have a powerful paycheque.
My question is for Ms. Bruske. She referenced in her opening statement the fight, sometimes, with big corporations in terms of securing benefits for workers. Sometimes those fights, though, are with governments.
I referenced in our last committee meeting the fight that unions had with former premier Mike Harris and his “common sense revolution”, and the days of actions that led to thousands of employees taking to the streets. Legislation from Prime Minister Harper was referenced today in terms of targeting unionized workers. Then, of course, I can point to Bill 124, with Premier Ford completely undermining the collective bargaining process, trying to cap wages outside of that process and really violating the rights of union members and of the people who represent them at the bargaining table.
I have a quick question for you, Ms. Bruske.
We look at wage disparity between union and non-union workers. Sometimes Conservative governments have it in them to pick a fight with unionized workers. Can you advise the committee on how we deal with those instances in terms of trying to correct some of the damages that have been done to that process over the years and how we can support, as a government, workers by just supporting the basic rights they have in terms of what they bring to the bargaining table?
:
Thank you for that question.
Obviously, first and foremost, listen to what union workers have to say. When you looked at Bill 124 in Ontario, you saw the lowest-paid education workers being told that they had to accept a collective agreement that was well subpar in terms of wages and benefits. The threat of using the notwithstanding clause in our Constitution to prevent those workers from going on strike for a fair deal was absolutely egregious.
It's the overreach when it comes to fair collective bargaining that is most at stake when we deal with these kinds of situations. We need to ensure that all employers, whether in the public or private sector, understand that when you get to the bargaining table, you need to put in a fair day's work of actually getting to a fair and reasonable deal based on what the economics currently provide. Too many times, we see interference in that particular process, and that is the problem.
I'll try to ask a question on something that falls under federal jurisdiction. We must remember that, generally speaking, Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over labour laws. Here, when it comes to strengthening unionization or labour laws, obviously, we have to focus on aspects that fall under our jurisdiction. If the task were to critique various provinces, be they run by a Liberal, Conservative or another government, then so be it, but I don't think that's the goal.
I'd like to ask about an obstacle to bargaining rights. In fact, I'm not sure whether it's an obstacle or not. This question is for you, Ms. Bruske.
Apparently, a section of the Canada Labour Code stipulates that binding arbitration can be used to end disputes. Do you think that's an infringement of the right of association and bargaining rights? What reaction did the Canadian Labour Congress have to that analysis?
I want to start by congratulating ATU Local 1724 president Joe McCann and all of their members today on ratifying a contract with Transdev and HandyDART. I know this was a long-fought battle for them. They secured increased wages and also a reduction in the use of taxis, which this committee would be interested in, as this serves people with disabilities who were being subjected more and more to transportation that did not suit their needs. I wanted to congratulate all of the HandyDART workers. Thank you again to the president of Local 1724.
I want to thank member Wayne Long for allowing us to shine a light on the corporate practices that are driving down wages and the new generation of worker exploitation that actually necessitated unions in the first place.
I will ask witness Dan Janssen if he could share some workplace practices he is seeing that are eroding the rights of workers, which Parliament should be addressing with legislation.
If we have time, I would also like to ask that question of witness Bea Bruske.
Again, thank you to our witnesses. This is a long session for you.
Ms. Bruske and witness Wybou, I just want to get your opinion on the decline of union membership. Stats Canada came out with a report in 2022, which basically says that over 40 years, from 1981 to 2022, union membership declined from 37.6% to 28.7%.
We'll start with you, Ms. Bruske. Can you comment on what might have contributed to that decline in union membership? Also, how has that decline in membership correlated with trends in earnings?
:
We can certainly see that, in many instances, larger workplaces that used to be unionized are not as large as they used to be, for one instance, and they're not as concentrated as they used to be. When you have a plant with 400 to 600 people working in one area, organizing one plant with a concentrated mass of employees is relatively simple, compared to the kind of unionization we have now, where we're trying to organize at different places at the same time, where workers are spread out and where there is not necessarily the same commonality of interest in terms of geographic location. That is one particular challenge.
I spoke earlier today, as well, about the different labour legislation and how that impacts unionization rates. Trying to organize a multi-tiered process to getting recognition and having bargaining rights is much more complicated than it has been in the past. That is egregious, and that's something that we work on with our provincial and territorial partners.
The decision to make application to a union is not an easy decision. It's a kitchen table conversation that you have with your family, because there is a lot that goes into that kind of decision. If my employer finds out that I'm trying to get unionized, am I going to lose my job before I can actually have union protection? Those are very real concerns that workers have.
Lastly, I would say that there is a changing demographic. Workers aren't staying at their places of employment for very long. It's very common to have workers working two or three different jobs at one time. The commitment to staying with one employer isn't as great because they don't see a future with that particular employer, in terms of actually building up into a middle-class job.
:
I will add to and emphasize what witness Bruske has said here.
One thing in particular that I've found in my own experience, too, is that in the evolving work landscape, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, we do see people living in various areas and doing remote work. Trying to organize within the virtual setting is quite difficult, because people are becoming increasingly siloed. I think some of that siloing is happening through cultural and societal shifts in general, which is making workers feel much more disconnected.
Also, the hostility of retaliation and the consequences of retaliation only get higher in the face of a housing crisis, collapsing health care and lower resources within your communities. If you're looking at needing to cover leases, mortgages, children and whatever it might be, that fear of retaliation is really high, and the need for worker solidarity is n-fold beyond it. The more we are siloed and the more we worry about that, the harder it is to have those kitchen table conversations where people do feel supported and where they have the capacity to go ahead with a card check.
I know that you know that I feel strongly about the fact that this witness was allowed to get away with twice refusing to appear before this committee. I also know that the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to give this person a free pass and opened the opportunity for them to send a brief.
I think we've seen on CBC that they've been covering the business practices of Starlight Investments. We've certainly seen the displacement and the exploitation of tenants. We're now in a situation where tenants are having to unionize against their landlords. I think that if the Starlight Investments CEO has something to say, we certainly would like to hear from him in this committee in a forum where we can ask him questions.
Equity is in question here. I think there is a class war going on right now between landlords and their tenants. Certainly, I understand why the Liberals and the Conservatives would team up to try to protect these corporate landlords. As an NDP member, I will not accept a submitted submission written by someone who twice refused to attend this parliamentary committee, right in the face of Canadians who are right now living in cars because of the practices of these types of landlords.
Thank you.