Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Benson.

[Robert Bouvier]

Just a second—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

No, no, sorry.

Mr. Benson.

[Phil Benson]

I can address it if you like.

Do you want me to address it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

[Phil Benson]

I think since you asked the question, you understand the reason for the legislation. It's that simple. The fact that you posed the question means you understand one of the rationales for the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

We're going to move now to our second round, which will be five minutes.

Mr. Regan, for five minutes, sir.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to come back to proposed subsection 94(2.4), because it is an important thing for us to try to figure out here. I don't know why it is that the English version makes reference to “The measures referred to in subsection (2.2)”, but subsection 94(2.2) isn't even mentioned in the French version of the article. This leaves me a bit baffled.

But if we go back to proposed subsection 94(2.2), what it's talking about is the kinds of employees whose services an employer may use during a strike or lockout. It talks about a person employed as a manager, superintendent, or foreman, and so forth, or a person who is a director or an officer. It says these are the kinds of people you can use during a strike or lockout, but then it says in proposed subsection 94(2.4) that the measures referred to “shall exclusively be conservation measures”.

It seems to be saying in this section that these people who a company can use can only be used to conserve, to do painting, to do maintenance, and so forth, of the aircraft or the buses, or whatever it may be, but not to actually provide goods and services. So that seems to me to be a problem, one that we have to try to perhaps discuss with legislative counsel, and so forth, in the future. I'm open to comments on that.

But let me ask another question. One of the things we've been hearing, and in fact the chairman and I last night had a meeting with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. They, like many groups that this committee has heard from over the past few months, were talking about the skills shortage and the difficulty they're having getting workers. We heard about a restaurant in Mr. Lake's home province of Alberta where they had actually provided a house, and had provided someone else with a car, in order to get them to come from Manitoba or other places to work at the restaurant, to try to have enough employees.

We're hearing about this kind of thing more and more across the country. It strikes me that we are seeing ourselves in a new era. Throughout my lifetime, and throughout the lifetime of most of us in this room, we've had a situation where there weren't enough jobs for Canadians, and now suddenly we have a time when there aren't enough Canadians for the jobs. There are still certainly Canadians who don't have jobs, and that remains a very important problem for us to try to address in a variety of ways, but we are seeing a whole new era, which may be changing the balance between workers and employers. If we have employers who are having to offer a lot more in order to get employees, it suggests that.

I'd like your comment on whether or not that in itself is altering the balance, as we try looking at this bill, to figure out what the heck the balance should be in relation to the issue of replacement workers. I'm going to leave it to all of you to answer that. I'm afraid you're going to have to answer briefly, because—

[Robert Bouvier]

On the one hand, if there's a shortage of workers, if we listen to the employer, they say it's a free market, so there's no limit to what an employee should ask. Why don't you ask for $100 an hour, or $300 an hour? Every employer will tell us it's irrelevant; it's a free market. It's a free market on one side, and now we're seeing in the newspaper that everything is costing too much and we should be trying to balance somewhere. I was just reading that in the newspaper today. But it's not true when you have to work out a conflict somewhere.

I can understand that people have been working at some of these jobs for 15, 20, or 25 years. Their whole life they've been surrounded by their job. They've been doing good work, good productivity, and all of that. What do scabs bring? Exclude the violence. Yes, there's no reason for violence, but if you want to make sure that I can't feed my wife and kids, I'll take care of you. I will. I have to survive. But it's not violence; it's just survival.

We have people working in places for 25 years, and there happens to be a strike and they're replaced by somebody. Where's the dignity in this? Where do you have something to fight with? The only thing we're saying is that there should be equal ground for people who are working in this thing. What you're telling me is that maybe they should go somewhere else and let this guy go belly up. They've spent their life in there. The people have the chance to have equal rights, to be balanced.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bouvier. I would also like to hear the opposite point of view. I know that

Mr. Coles is with one of the unions.

I think we should hear from the employer's side, if you don't mind, just so we have both sides on this.

Mr. Mackay.

[Cliff Mackay]

I'll be very brief.

Yes, there is a growing concern about qualified labour in our industry and in most industries, and we are initiating a wide range of things to try to deal with that. As to whether this legislation provides the balance in that new environment, we are, as I said earlier, very skeptical.

We think the balance in our industry is pretty good right now. We haven't had major labour disruptions in a long time. We just don't see how this legislation is going to benefit the environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There are 15 seconds left.

Mr. O'Farrell, or—

[David Coles]

On the issue of the sectors of the economy that we're asking people to talk about today—broadcast, telephone, telecommunications—there is tremendous downsizing, laying off thousands and thousands of workers. So let's not talk about the oil sands, which we happen to represent as well, but the sectors that are before this committee.

Sir, I would ask, please, that somebody talk about those sectors that are directly affected. We're having huge layoffs.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Naturally, we're concerned about this. We have heard, for example, about the shortage of aviation mechanics. That's an area we're dealing with. I accept what you're saying. Certainly, there have been layoffs, and that's a matter of concern. I guess the point is that it looks like, as a society, we are seeing a major change, a paradigm shift, if you will, that moves away from what we're used to in our lifetime. I hope that's a good thing. We'll have to wait and see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Regan.

We're going to now move to Mr. Lessard for five minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank you for coming.

Now let me speak to both employer associations, the railway employers and the telecommunications employers. They all have concerns. Both parties want to strike a balance and they want to find a key to this balance. It seems to have to do with the essential services issue. I gathered that Mr. O'Farrell, among others, said that if we had anything of this nature, we should know what it is before speaking out. Mr. Bouvier, who is on the union side, said that we had to provide an essential mechanism defined by industry. He did not say "for industry", but he said "by industry". I am trying to understand your concerns and to answer them at the same time. Here is what I am driving at.

I worked in the hospital sector from 1957 on. If any sector is sensitive and needs essential services, it is that one. Briefly, I want to say that in 1958 there was a three-month strike at the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur in Hull. In 1963, the nurses of Hôpital Sainte-Justine went on a one-month strike. In 1966, there was a three-month strike in all the Quebec hospitals. In 1972, there was a 12-day public sector strike in Quebec, while there was not yet any anti-scab legislation. We saw a bit of everything in these disputes. I could speak to you about other similar cases.

My colleague said that the essential services legislation was adopted before the anti-scab legislation. Since we have had an anti-scab legislation, we have not experienced any more such events, except during the strike led by the Fédération des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec, a few years ago. Each time, in all these sectors, the parties themselves defined essential services. This is what I mean. We must deal with essentials, and it is essential to know whether both parties in the dispute are comprised of responsible people, responsible citizens. My answer is yes, given my experience. Once we have had such a concrete experience, which goes beyond figures... I am not talking about mere figures, I am talking about a real, concrete experience before and after adopting this legislation in Quebec. I have always lived in Quebec and I could see the difference between the two systems.

When you hear me say this, what is your answer? Do you think that my statements make no sense? These are concrete facts, we are not crunching numbers. If I say that there are responsible people and that we can leave this up to industry or to the company involved, would that reassure you?

[Glenn O'Farrell]

If I understand your statement correctly, Mr. Lessard, you said that the essential services legislation in Quebec came before the anti-scab legislation. Do you admit that the Quebec legislation on essential services is a rather complex mechanism that was created following a legislative study, a study that was not done in the case at hand?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

What might seem complicated to an outside observer is not complicated for someone inside. Let me explain. The legislation did not try to determine the definition of essential services for each enterprise, each industry, etc. This also applies to urban transit, which is under provincial jurisdiction. There have been disputes in that sector. The parties establish the standards. The legislation states that essential services must be ensured. If the parties disagree, they can resort to the Conseil des services essentiels. The mechanism, as such, is not complicated.

[Glenn O'Farrell]

It is a bit more complicated than that, with all due respect. You are entirely right, the Quebec labour legislation states that both parties must decide, and if there is no such agreement, they must resort to the Conseil. I think that nonetheless, there is a form of monitoring and a process that ensures that these steps are taken and that a solution can be found.

For my own benefit, I spoke to the Conseil des services essentiels to try to find examples, to find out how things are done, and to study the case law. I have here an example, dated January 31, 2002: TIRU (Canada) Inc., 900, Industrielle Street, Quebec and the Canadian Union of Public Employees versus Quebec City, as well as the decision handed down by the Conseil des services essentiels.

This is just one example, and there may be many more that you know better than I do. This shows how important the monitoring was in obtaining solutions to these issues and in reaching a conclusion. As you said at the beginning of your statements, without such parameters, it is difficult for us to know exactly how things would develop. To help the parties agree on what is essential, if they are asked this question, whatever the industry may be, as Mr. Bouvier, said it would depend on the conditions of that industry. I think that we would obtain some results, but I do not think that this a question that we have to face today. There are many more things to do before getting to this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. O'Farrell.

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We're going to move to Mr. Brown for five minutes.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

My first question will be for the Railway Association. I've heard this comment about potential violence. My initial assessment would be the reverse. I would note that I think Canadians are very peaceful and this would be an unlikely possibility, but if there was that remote chance of violence, and if, in the telecommunications industry, that caused the banking sector to have shutdowns and people couldn't get their paycheques or pay their mortgages, people would be very incensed.

On the same note, if grain farmers couldn't get their grain on the railway in order to simply conduct their lives and support their families, there could be potential concerns for violence there.

In effect, the proposed legislation actually could cause violence. I don't see the existing legislation as being a cause for violence. If you read the news, we're not reading about incidents of violence happening on an active basis in Canada.

I want to have the impressions of the Railway Association and if that's a concern they would have.

[Cliff Mackay]

I'm not sure we'd write that as a big concern, but I will comment very briefly on violence. We've been very fortunate in our relationships over a large number of years. We just have not had that kind of violence, and we would hope that would continue.

Unfortunately, particularly in the last few years, we've had a number of incidents where our operations have been disrupted for native protests and other reasons. In those circumstances, when you do disrupt service, we have had some grave concerns that the situation could easily deteriorate into a matter of violence. This is something we've spent a lot of time on, in working with first responders and others to make sure those sorts of situations don't happen.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

My second question will be for the teamsters.

One statistic that I would suggest speaks volumes is that in the last five years, if you look at Ontario and Quebec, Ontario has had more success in maintaining labour peace without this legislation, in comparison to Quebec. If you look at the per capita days lost to labour disruptions, we've seen a greater degree of success and peace in the workforce in a province that doesn't have this legislation.

So when supporters of this proposed legislation speak to it as having a potential for labour peace, the actual facts speak against that. The interesting thing is, you can always say that a one-year statistic could be an aberration, but for five years in a row, it is a pretty stark contrast.

Could you comment specifically on the Ontario and Quebec numbers, and why this legislation has been unsuccessful in Quebec, in comparison to Ontario?

[Phil Benson]

Thank you for the question.

On the issue of violence, nowhere in our brief do we raise that. It's a matter of respect and dignity. As I said, welcome to the 21st century. As I said in my presentation, as you go across the country, you can pick out any particular piece of legislation that you don't like and say, gosh, that's why an economy isn't performing.

As you look at Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, which had me booming and screaming, from the union side and management side, I think they have cooperated and negotiated--as obviously the Railway Association people show--some pretty good contracts. These are pretty good situations. There are many things that determine how many strikes there are, what areas they're in, and what happens.

I think to be so narrowly cast as.... Remember, statistics lie, and liars use statistics. As one who meddles in those things, I tend to avoid them as best I can. I don't think it's something to hang our hat on one way or the other. I think for us coming forward, it is a respect issue and a dignity issue. It's time we have full 21st-century laws.

Secondly, it is not just about a bankruptcy or a disruption. With all respect to our friends from communications, if CBC is on strike, I don't watch them; I watch CTV, Global, and a plethora of other channels. It's not everybody or everything when we're talking about essential services. We're talking more in a vein.

Companies do what they do if they're not happy. It's called globalization. That's something we understand greatly. If they're unhappy and they want to move, they move. They can move out of the country. They can move overseas. They do it at the turn of the hat. They do it in the middle of a collective agreement, as is their business right to do. So there is balance. There is all sorts of balance. There is all sorts of stuff.

I do thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

And I want to thank you, Mr. Benson.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.