Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

Our witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations. There will be two rounds of questioning, one round of seven minutes and a second one of five minutes. I will do my best to keep my eye on the clock, although when you have MPs asking questions, anything can happen. We try to keep everyone within the timeframe.

I also want to remind everybody that all questions should be put through me, the chair. We'll start with Mr. Roy.

[René Roy, Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Good afternoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having us here to testify on a bill with which the FTQ is quite familiar.

The right to use replacement workers equates, for all practical purposes, to giving employers the right to dismiss all their employees when a labour dispute occurs.

There are two of us testifying here this morning. I am accompanied by Ms. Allard who worked at Canada Post Corporation and who experienced labour disputes involving replacement workers.

We have argued against the use of replacement workers for 30 to 40 years. Every time replacement workers are called on, labour disputes turn violent. It is ridiculous to believe, even in this day and age, that there would be no violence if replacement workers were to cross the picket lines.

A couple of weeks ago, in Montreal, residents came and demonstrated in front of strikers who had been on the picket line for nine months. It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that workers on strike for the last nine months would be in a good mood and that crossing a picket line that had been in existence for such a long time would not lead to violence.

In the United States, the government has practically dismissed a number of air traffic controllers. In Canada, early this century, the Maclaren company used replacement workers. Union leaders were killed and their families were banished from the region for 50 years.

In 1974, United Aircraft faced a 20-month strike which led to confrontations, dismissals, and people going to prison and getting injured. The dispute was so bad that the company had to change name in order to continue to operate in Quebec.

Quebec's anti-scab legislation came as a result of this and other conflicts. Before this legislation was enacted, body guards shot at workers during a conflict at Robin Hood, in Montreal. More recently, there was a labour conflict at Vidéotron.

I'll now let Monique talk about the dispute at Canada Post Corporation.

[Monique Allard, Member, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

I'm going to testify in my capacity as a worker. I have been on the labour market for 40 years, 32 of which were spent at Canada Post Corporation. I've lived through several strikes, so I'm in a position to tell you a lot about my experience of the picket lines. Since I don't have much time, I'm going to try and give you a sense of what it means to be on strike and go on strike, with or without strikebreakers.

The decision to vote in favour of going on strike is a last recourse. No worker decides to go on strike with a great deal of delight. Being on strike leads to a high stress level since you don't know how long the strike will last or what sort of income you will have. Weekly allowances of $150 to $175 are certainly not enough to make an employee enjoy going on strike. You go on strike therefore as a last resort.

Let me take you back to the strike which took place at Canada Post Corporation in 1991. I worked at the Ville-Saint-Laurent mail sorting centre at the time and, as strikers, we were legally entitled to go on strike. Canada Post Corporation, which has a considerable amount of money, used strike breakers who were transported by helicopter over our heads to the facility. Furthermore, bodyguards with Doberman dogs patrolled the facility while we were stationed outside.

As if that wasn't enough, there was a convoy of about 10 bus loads full of strike breakers, which crossed the picket lines not only with the Montreal police but also with the anti-riot squad. I got three damaged ribs because of the anti-riot squad. I have to thank them for that and I often think about them.

I've known people who, throughout their career, were the types of people nobody ever talked about, model employees who, once on the picket line, changed altogether because they considered the use of replacement workers to be a legal form of theft. I believe our jobs are being stolen in such cases, even though we have the right to conduct a legal strike. Going on strike isn't something you consider doing initially, it is a last resort.

In my opinion, when you draft anti-scab legislation, you should think about the impact it may have on peoples' lives. Workers have seen their lives disrupted. Some people, including model employees, have lost their jobs because of strike breakers. Others have ended up with criminal records because of strikebreakers. Their lives are changed forever.

I don't know how many people around this table have experienced what I have just recounted, have been on the picket lines, been in confrontation with the police and not known whether they'd have a job when the strike ended. I don't know if many of you have had this experience, but I hope that you at least now get a sense of what such a dispute is like where, day after day, you have to go on the picket lines and watch strikebreakers cross over, sometimes with an air of arrogance, because they have police protection. I would not wish that on anyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Moving on to our next group, we'll now give Monsieur Moreau and Madame Carbonneau seven minutes.

[Claudette Carbonneau, présidente, Centrale des syndicats nationaux]

Good afternoon. Thank you for having us. I will get straight to the point. I have seven minutes to present and seven points to make.

Collective labour relations are based on three pillars that must constantly be kept in mind. First, freedom of association and union recognition; second, the duty to bargain in good faith; and third, the option of resorting to job action in order to increase the chances of reaching a collective agreement.

It is precisely in order to guarantee the third pillar that the bill we are discussing today has to be passed. The right to strike is a fundamental democratic right; you have to be able to exercise it under circumstances that do not minimize its impact.

Second, I will talk about the supposed balance. The balance to be sought in legislation is a balance between the parties, in order to increase the chances of reaching an agreement. However, the current legislation, which claims to balance the economic rights of both parties, actually only throws the power dynamics off balance. The right to continue operating during a labour dispute makes striking ineffective. Introducing a third party into this type of two party system does not work; it upsets the balance. In short, it leads to drawn out disputes, violence and the loss of workers' rights.

There is a third thing to consider: the current provisions are meaningless. The CSN does not agree with the minister that the enforcement provisions of the current code adequately protect workers and their unions. For one thing, that legitimizes a practice that we consider illegitimate from the start. It also puts an unfair burden on the union, which has to establish that the employer intended to undermine the union's representational capacity, as if the consequences alone of that practice were not enough. So there are two conditions to be met, the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, gibberish, a huge empty shell, a gratuitous pretext for legalizing scabs.

So it is hardly surprising, against that backdrop, that out of a few hundred disputes since 1999, only 19 complaints were lodged and 14 of them were withdrawn before they got to a hearing. That says a lot about the supposed enforcement mechanism.

The fourth point has to do with the fact that eight provinces do not want replacement workers legislation. That is a great excuse for embracing the status quo. The federal code applies to around 10% of the Canadian labour force. Those workers are governed by provisions that apply only to them and that are at times better, at times equivalent and at times worse than the various provincial laws. When the federal government uses the fact that eight provinces do not have replacement worker legislation to justify its own inaction, is not that tantamount to refusing to exercise its own jurisdiction over workers covered by the Labour Code? That reasoning is poor, irresponsible and inappropriate.

The fifth point has to do with the impact of replacement worker provisions on the lengths of disputes. The minister clearly tabled an incomplete and partial selection of statistics on strike days,in an attempt to show that these provisions have little impact. We have a radically different interpretation of that data. Federally, the number of strike days is generally higher than in Quebec, per 1,000 workers, and has been for the past 40 years, with an upward trend since the year 2000. In Quebec and Ontario, there has been a noticeable decrease in the number of days lost over the years. However, the trend is far more striking in Quebec than in Ontario; Quebec had 10 times fewer days lost in 2000 than in 1976-1977, and over the same period, Ontario, which does not have replacement worker provisions, has reduced its own results by five times, or two times less than Quebec. Between 1996 and 2005, the average length of disputes for workers under federal jurisdiction in Quebec was 19.7 days, versus 15.5 for those under provincial jurisdiction. That is not insignificant, when you find that gap over such a long time.

So, in our opinion, in Quebec as in British Columbia, the statistics overwhelmingly show that replacement worker legislation makes labour relations more civilized and reduces the number and length of disputes. I would add that in Quebec, a number of management representatives have frequently spoken publicly about the appropriateness of this type of legislation.

This brings me to my sixth point. When it comes to economic growth, I think this has to be given a bit more serious consideration. The level of investment depends on a number of factors; labour relations, workforce skill level, infrastructure, taxation, etc. Isolating these factors requires a lot of work, which neither the Montreal Economic Institute nor the Fraser Institute has done.

Union density in the private sector in Quebec is at 28%, and even less in SMEs. Given that, how do you explain the loss of 30,000 jobs in SMEs and the overall lack of investment in the private sector? It's total exaggeration, economic nonsense.

On a more serious note, I would refer you to the study done by UQAM professor Nicolas Marceau, who takes quite a different view of the situation.

And by way of conclusion, I would point out that the Parliament of Canada has an incredible opportunity here to pass a bill containing the exact same provisions that have been successfully tried and tested for 30 years in Quebec.

I would encourage members to consider this: a company is a legal entity; it doesn't suffer. Workers suffer, on a daily basis, from the effects of a labour dispute or a collective agreement signed in desperation. They have needs and dependents with needs of their own. It would be improper to put these two realities on an equal footing for the purposes of debating this bill. So, if social justice is of concern to you, here's what I think: this is an excellent opportunity to promote it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Ms. Carbonneau.

I'm going to move to the next group.

Mr. Facette and Mr. Lotito, seven minutes, please.

[Jim Facette, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Airports Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's an honour for us to be here today to discuss this very important bill.

With me here today is one of those front-end experts that was discussed at your prior meeting. He is from the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, the vice-president of human resources, Mr. Vito Lotito. We think it's so important that we've brought in some front-line people.

Canada's airports believe that you should be aware of the potential devastating impact this legislation could have on the airport community across Canada. If enacted, this bill could result in a shutdown of one or more of Canada's airports in the event of a strike.

The Canadian Airports Council is the national association of Canada's airports. Our 45 members include more than 150 airports, handling virtually all of the nation's air cargo and international passenger traffic, and 95% of domestic passenger traffic.

Our position today is supported by the Air Transport Association of Canada, which represents Canada's air carrier sector, an organization that was not granted a hearing by this committee. We hope it will be in the future.

Canada's airports are an essential component of the Canadian infrastructure for the communities they serve, and indeed for the nation. Canada's airports play a vital economic and social role. They also play an important part in the continued health and security of our nation: the military, medevac, search and rescue, and forest fire bombers all rely on airports as bases of operation. For northern and remote communities, airports are particularly important. For some communities, air service is the only link to the outside world.

To shut down an airport is to weaken our national transportation system. The Minister of Transport, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, is keenly aware of the critical role played by our airports. In October of this year, he told the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that we must ensure that federal policies and legislation continue to strengthen our national transportation system. Getting them right matters for competitiveness.

This bill, we submit, does not get it right. This bill jeopardizes Canada's competitiveness. Such is our concern about the implications of this bill that we wrote the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in November to advise the minister that if Bill C-257 becomes law, Canada's airports, in the event of a strike by certain occupational groups, likely would not be able to live up to regulated responsibilities under the terms of the Canadian aviation regulations. We must live up to them. We do not have a choice. But it is our opinion, and the opinion of our legal counsel, that airports in Canada will not be able to do so if Bill C-257 is enacted.

Let me give you just a few examples to illustrate the severity of our concerns. If aircraft fuellers strike, then aircraft will not fly. If aircraft de-icers strike, then aircraft will not fly in the winter months. If baggage and cargo handlers strike, then people and products won't be loaded and unloaded. With no passengers, no baggage, and no cargo, aircraft will not fly. If ground handling personnel strike, aircraft cannot be safely moved on the tarmac. Again, aircraft will not fly. If airport security personnel strike, facility security may be compromised and airport operations will be curtailed or will cease. If pre-board security screeners strike, then nobody flies.

Some may say that existing essential service protection, called maintenance of activities in subsection 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, will ensure that these critical services continue to be provided during a strike or lockout. We do not agree. Regrettably, 87.4 has proven to be inadequate. Canada's aviation sector has not been well served by the current maintenance of activities provisions.

For example, aviation sector employers and unions alike have been anxiously awaiting, for almost six years, a final decision from the Canada Industrial Relations Board concerning air traffic control and related services provided by Nav Canada. If to this inadequate essential service protection you add a ban on the use of replacement workers, you will have a recipe for airport chaos in the event of a strike.

Given the essential role Canada's airports play in the functioning of our country, we anticipate that emergency back-to-work legislation will once again be the order of the day. Prior to the 1999 amendments to the Canada Labour Code, the federal government had to enact emergency back-to-work legislation on 17 occasions. Since the 1999 amendments, there hasn't been a single incident during which the federal government has had to legislate an end to a strike or lockout. This is the best evidence of a balanced labour code serving the interests of all parties: labour, management, government, and, most importantly, the people of Canada. We urge you not to upset this delicate balance.

You have been bombarded with conflicting statistics for and against the ban on replacement workers. We wish to add some views to this debate.

First, let me say that we respect the expertise and neutrality of the federal public servants who prepared the report entitled Key Observations Regarding the Effect of Replacement Workers Legislation on Workers this year. That document makes a number of very important statements, which we urge you to consider carefully as you consider this proposal to ban the use of replacement workers. There is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages, it says. There is no evidence that replacement worker legislation will result in shorter duration of work stoppages. It also states that there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work days lost.

Apparently the policy experts at the federal Department of Labour do not agree with organized labour's assertions that replacement workers lengthen or increase the number of strikes. If you have not already done so, we urge you to read the federal Department of Labour's report.

We too have some telling statistics to share with the committee and parliamentarians. We represent 150 airports, each with at least one collective agreement that is renegotiated about every three years. This means that in the last ten years there have been at least 450 collective agreements renegotiated by airports and their unions across Canada. Put another way, that is at least 450 instances where a strike or lockout could have occurred. I am happy to report that there have been fewer than five airport labour disruptions in that time. The system is balanced. We urge you not to disrupt this delicate balance by dramatically and unfairly increasing the balance of power.

Canada does not need Bill C-257. There has been a restriction on the use of replacement workers for almost seven years, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board has yet to issue a single decision in circumstances where an employer has actually used replacement workers. Laws should only be changed to fix problems. There is simply no problem to fix.

In conclusion, Canada's airports are very concerned about Bill C-257 because it could result in the shutdown of one or more of Canada's airports in the event of a strike. Because of the vital role airports play in our communities and the nation, we hope this committee will not let that happen. This bill is not needed.

As we articulated earlier, our position is supported by Canada's air carrier sector. This bill would damage Canada's airports, the communities we serve, and the economy as a whole. Federal law must strengthen, not weaken, Canada's transportation and economic infrastructure.

Monsieur le président, merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Facette.

We're going to now move to the last witness. We have Mr. Kelly-Gagnon and Mr. Giroux, for seven minutes, please.

[Michel Kelly-Gagnon, President, Conseil du patronat du Québec]

Good afternoon. My name is Michel Kelly-Gagnon. I am the President of the Conseil du patronat du Québec. I am accompanied by Mr. André C. Giroux from the Ogilvy Renault Law Firm.

The Conseil du patronat is an association of employers whose members, either directly or by affiliation with sectoral organizations, employ close to 70% of Quebec's labour force.

Our message today is straightforward and direct: For the love of God, throw this bill out, it will not be beneficial in any of the ways that have been predicted, rather, it will have many unexpected consequences.

I would like to clarify something right away. The member for Gatineau stated before this committee on November 28 that the Conseil du patronat du Québec had never made an attempt to block this bill to prevent the use of replacement workers in Quebec.

On the contrary, at the time, the Conseil du patronat went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to have its legal interest recognized and to fight this legislation. Then, after doing so at the Supreme Court level, the Conseil appeared before the Appeal Court of Québec to fight this bill. It ended up dropping the case at the Appeal's Court realizing it was a lost cause. Going to the Supreme Court and then to the Appeal's Court is not what I would call not making an attempt to stop this bill.

I thought it was important to set the record straight given that there is a lot of misinformation floating about on this issue.

I would like to remind you that the burden of proof lays with the political parties and groups supporting this bill, and not with us. Indeed, in order to gain your support for this bill the onus is on them to demonstrate it would be effective and beneficial as promised. They have to prove that this bill will, in and of itself, reduce the number of labour disputes, their duration and intensity, as promised. Let me reiterate: The burden of proof is on those wishing to amend the legislation.

I would like to draw your attention to page 5 of our brief, where you will find a table with data from Human Resources and Social development Canada's HRSDC current Website. If you are interested in where we got our statistics, just go to this Website.

The chart takes a comparative look at the frequency of work stoppages over a 25 year period, from 1980 to 2005. You will see that there have been fewer labour disputes in Quebec since 1977. That is indeed true, but what the components of this bill fail to tell you is that in jurisdictions where there is no legislation preventing the use of replacement workers the same trend may be observed and it is, in some cases, even more marked.

In other words, every jurisdiction has seen a similar drop in the number of labour disputes regardless of the existence of legislation banning the use of replacement workers. Furthermore, let me turn to how economic infrastructure and Canadians' financial security. You will note that my argument has nothing to do with Canadians' physical safety, but rather their financial security. In our opinion, this is a key argument because it goes to the heart of Canada's economic infrastructure.

We are not referring to florists or gift card shops; we are talking about banks, financial services, telecommunications, air transport, rail transport, and so on and so forth. As the representatives from the airport association explained earlier, the ramifications of any such paralysis are clear. Imagine the damage this could potentially do to our economy, to families and communities. I appeal to every one who cares about Canada's competitiveness.

The issue of balance had been brought up. Let me tell you what I understand by balance. According to the Canada Industrial Board in 2005-2006, 97% of collective agreements under federal jurisdiction were signed without a single work stoppage, that 97%? What are you trying to achieve with this bill?Jeopardize the security of Canada's economic and infrastructure for a mere 3%? You have got balance, in my opinion, with 97%.

I'd like to congratulate this committee for having had the wisdom to consider other studies. There has been a lot of talk about the Quebec model. Seven minutes is not enough time for me to give you a complete understanding of it, however I invite you to visit our beautiful province and to speak with our business people who have been under this legislation's stranglehold for the past 30 years. I am sure you would find that very useful.

I would also like to stress that it is perfectly normal for some political parties to support this legislation given that they have a natural alliance with the unions. They basically don't think twice before supporting such legislation. That is quite a normal way of functioning for these political parties which, I might point out, don't have much of a chance of forming the next government. In some cases they do not even intend to try. However, some political parties may be called upon to form upcoming governments. In my opinion, these parties should get more attention on this matter.

I would like to close by referring to an infamous statement made by Stéphane Dion in the House: We must say no, no, no, to Bill C-257, no to a bill which will not be able to make good on its promises.

Mr. Giroux will be able to speak to the issue of violence. Should you have any questions on this issue, we would be pleased to provide you with any details.

We must say no to a bill which will disrupt the balance of power in union management bargaining.

In fact, on the union side, a striking employee has the right to work if he or she so desires. The opposite would, however, not be true in the case of an employer wishing to hire replacement workers. Let me reiterate, labour relations at a federal level are just fine in the majority of cases.

We must say no to a bill which would affect the very economic infrastructure of our country and which is, in itself a threat to Canada's economic security. In my opinion, any threat to Canadians' financial security should be more than enough to raise doubts in the minds of committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly-Gagnon.

We're going to start with the first round of questions.

Mr. Coderre, seven minutes, please.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You mentioned chaos and devastation. I'm from Quebec, and if I were to go by what I've just heard, I'd better go get my kids before it all comes crumbling down. I would suggest Mr. Kelly-Gagnon take a deep breath; it might calm him down a bit.

The role of a lawmaker and parliamentarian is to ensure that Canadians have a better quality of life. The goal is not to be a scaremonger or alarmist. As a matter of fact, the more you do that, the less credible you are. We should instead be asking what the true definition of the word “balance” is. Statistics show whatever you want them to show. The issue here is social harmony, a decent environment not just economically but also in terms of labour management relations. We have to ask ourselves whether we've done everything that needed to be done.

Mr. McDermott mentioned the Sims report. There was the issue of Mr. Blouin. He said that everything had been settled, except for the issue of strikebreakers. This kind of decent debate is to be expected, without descending into panic or sensationalism. I've been in politics for 25 years and I'm from Quebec. I don't know what you've got against florists; they contribute to the economy too. I don't see any signs of trouble when I go to Quebec. There's no war, no chaos, no total destruction. In my opinion, we have to calm down a bit and deal with the real issues.

In the proposed bill, two things interest me. Are we capable of maintaining a decent relationship among worker, union and employer? Above all, we must not forget Canadians, who, by the way, are also workers and employers. In my view, the issue of essential services, which is central to all kinds of debates, is crucial.

Ms. Carbonneau, Mr. Roy and the rest of you, you have experienced the situation in Quebec, but not in a vacuum. You know what's going on in the rest of Canada and elsewhere. You belong to international organizations that sign agreements, deal with freedom of association, etc.

Mr. Facette, section 87.4 is important. It provides that anything that has to do with public health and safety must be covered by essential services. In the event of strike or lockout, the employer and employees are required to agree within 15 days on the issue of essential services, in a collective agreement or bargaining. We are of course going to look into whether we went far enough and whether that is consistent with what exists currently.

Mr. Facette and Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, you've got something against unions. You seem very aggressive to me. If you worked for a company and there was a strike or lockout—which is a tool the employer can use—and you were replaced by someone else, would you find that acceptable?

Ultimately, the goal here is to determine whether or not we agree on having strikebreakers. Do we find it acceptable, while the employer and union are trying to negotiate a solution, for workers, except for essential services, to be replaced by other personnel?

I'd like to hear what Mr. Kelly-Gagnon and Mr. Facette have to say.

[Jim Facette]

Thank you, honourable member and Mr. Chair.

In answer to that question, what we support is what we have today. We have a Canada Labour Code that provides airports with what we need. We would advocate that this bill goes beyond that. So we advocate keeping what we have today with the Canada Labour Code.

[Michel Kelly-Gagnon]

Members of Parliament are supposed to serve the public. For a servant of the public, I find you very condescending and full of contempt.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I've been elected four times and I've been a Member of Parliament for ten years. I've been in politics for 25 years. If you don't agree with my way of doing things, you should run against me. Meanwhile, your role is to represent people. I didn't launch any personal attacks. And you don't want to go there; you could be in for quite a battle. I have a temper too, but I want to remain calm. So, please, answer my question, because that's what you're here for.

Are you or are you not in favour of strikebreakers?

[Michel Kelly-Gagnon]

First of all, you should be saying “replacement workers”, because that's the terminology used in the bill before us. So I would ask you to use neutral terminology, please.

There is a fully justifiable place for replacement workers in a balanced situation. Absolutely.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. René Roy and Ms. Carbonneau, do you have a quick comment?

[René Roy]

First, I'm surprised. Mr. Facette told us about a relatively recent strike at the Quebec City airport—perhaps two or three years ago—that lasted several months. The employer didn't use replacement workers or scabs.

I prefer the word “scabs”. That might upset Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, but I'm not the one who drafted the bill. I would have used the word “scabs” in the bill. So they didn't use “scabs” and they didn't close the airport down.

I'm surprised by the statements of Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, from the Conseil du patronat, with whom we have worked on a variety of matters over the years, including the anti-scab legislation and essential services in Quebec.

It's true that the Conseil du patronat fought the legislation at first; it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. I remember very clearly meeting his predecessor, around 1983. He had abandoned the proceedings, saying that the anti-scab legislation had virtually eliminated violence in labour disputes. That is what his predecessor said.

I suppose you can go and ask him yourself. That's why the Conseil du patronat gave up the fight over the anti-scab legislation.

[Claudette Carbonneau]

Using replacement workers is a denial of the appropriate exercise of the right to strike. It is extremely unproductive.

However, I found your point very interesting, Mr. Coderre, about Canada's international commitments. What I'm hearing here this morning is an argument against the right to strike. I'm sorry, but Canada is a signatory to a number of conventions on this, and all of the international bodies that govern these issues say you can't take away or limit the right to strike on grounds of economic competitiveness. That would be disruptive and would make the whole labour relations exercise completely counterproductive.

There's a very delicate balance in terms of bargaining power, because when a replacement worker is used, it's like telling everyone who has been on strike for two or three months, or a year or two, that basically their strike is pointless and they can no longer put any pressure on the employer. That's unacceptable.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Someone said earlier, it was Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, that the leader of the Liberal Party had come out against Bill C-257.

Since we have media in the room, I want to make sure we're on the record. Mr. Dion wasn't there for the vote. He never said he would be against. As a matter of fact, he was in favour of Bill C-257 before he was leader. Now as leader he will have to take a stand, but he never ever said no to Bill C-257.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Coderre, that was not a point of order, but you made your point.

I want to remind the witnesses as well as the MPs that all conversations should go through the chair. I know people on both sides feel very passionately about this issue. I would ask that your comments be referred to me.

We're going to move on to Madame Lavallée for seven minutes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much.

I wish to thank our witnesses for their testimonies this morning. In fact, I found Ms. Monique Allard's testimony to be very moving and human. I very much appreciated it.

In that sense, Mr. Kelly-Gagnon is entirely right. We, members of Parliament, are here in Ottawa to defend our fellow citizens and the interests of all workers. This is our job.

Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, your testimony puzzles me for several reasons. I am going over the conclusions in the document you have distributed to us. You start your comments with these words:

To prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers is the equivalent of giving trade unions the abusive power to completely paralyze the nerve centres of the Canadian economy [...]

This would mean that for the last 30 years, trade unions have abused their powers and completely paralyzed the nerve centres of the Quebec economy. I do not believe that I am making a fallacious argument by making this connection. In any case, it is more or less what I was expecting.

Yesterday, I went on your website. You have written a lot of submissions over the years. I was interested in knowing which arguments against the anti-scab legislation you were going to raise today. Your website contains archives going back to 1999, and includes all of your submissions. In 2000, you wrote 12 ; in 2001, nine ; in 2002, 15; in 2003, 10; in 2004, 13; in 2005, 15; and in 2006 you produced six submissions. That is good. We will add this one today.

Since 1999, you have presented 81 submissions. I asked somebody to read all of them. In how many of them briefings do you talk about the anti-scab legislation? Only in one. Do you speak out against the act? No, not really. You touch upon this subject in a document entitled “Reactions of the Conseil du patronat du Québec on the government paper entitled Renewing the Labour Code”.

If trade unions have been abusing their power to completely paralyze the Quebec economy, you only mention this twice in the document. Once, you mentioned “anti-scab provisions” in parenthesis and in your conclusion, you talked about “Let us just consider the following provisions”. You then elaborate further on the subject. You set out eight provisions, including one regarding “anti-scab provisions”. Yet, not one single paragraph speaks out against the anti-scab law. You talk about other subjects including the notion of a dependant entrepreneur, independent workers, new wage systems, other concepts similar to these, but not once you condemn the anti-scab legislation.

Therefore, what I find strange is that the Conseil du patronat, which represents so many businesses and employers, has not defended society from the total paralysis that has griped the Quebec economy. In on of your submissions, you even wrote that “Notes for a meeting with Quebec caucus members from each party in Ottawa, November 2001”, something not to be taken lightly. But you do not talk about the anti-scab law. I was surprised: you have written 80 papers in six years, in which you devoted only two lines to the anti-scab legislation.

That said, I also looked over your other conclusions, including the following:

To prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers is to trade a well functioning federal Labour Code that nobody complains about [...]

It is wrong to say that nobody complains. Ms. Allard, who is present today, is complaining; Mr. Moreau, is certainly going to give a testimony later about Radio Nord, he is going to complain bitterly about it. Do you think that the employees of Vidéotron are happy with the provisions of the Canadian Labour Code? Never. I am not talking about Sécur or Cargill. A lot of people are complaining. Therefore, Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, your statement is unfortunately, wrong.

Next, you say:

To prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers is to set a dangerous precedent that will encourage the other provinces in Canada to follow the same model [...]

Why will that encourage other provinces to do as much? If your first conclusion is true, then the nerve centres of the Canadian economy are going to be completely paralyzed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Madame Lavallée, could you slow down just a bit, so the translator can keep up?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I am sorry, I get carried away with this subject. I know, there is so much I want to say.

So why would any province want to pass legislation that would completely paralyze the nerve centres of its economy?

Since we are talking about nerve centres, you were actually saying earlier that it was really frightening, that the banks would be paralyzed. But, Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, less than 1% of banks are unionized, so that could hardly paralyze them. Apparently 0.25% of them are actually unionized. The replacement worker legislation obviously applies only to unionized workers. For banks, that is serious, but not for florists! But in Quebec, for 30 years, what groups sought better conditions? Florists, yes, but also doctors, specialists. They are not insignificant. So, 0.25% of banks and 100% of specialists, Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, are subject to strike legislation. I think people's health is far more important on our value scale than the economic health of 0.25% of banks.

Finally, since you said earlier that nobody was complaining about the absence of replacement worker legislation, I would like to give Mr. Yvon Moreau, representing the Radio Nord union, the chance to explain his experience in Abitibi, which lasted 22 months, in fact.

[Yvon Moreau, President, Abitibi-Temiscamingue Communications, Centrale des syndicats nationaux]

Absolutely. Over 22 months, almost 800 days, 800 sunrises and sunsets for 60 people, their spouses and their children. Obviously, I am not a politician. In every day life, I am a journalist in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a region which, as you know, is still going through a major economic crisis.

I was listening to Mr. Kelly-Gagnon from the Conseil du patronat and I listen to the people from the Bloc Québebois and the Liberal Party. What I have been hearing since I got here this morning makes me think of a labour management dispute. Although I am the president of the union where I work, I do not want to refer to Bill C-257 as a bill that could be the object of a future labour management dispute. I want to refer to Bill C-257 as a way of harmonizing labour management relations, because for 800 days, my colleagues and I were on strike, and for 800 days, my managers had economic difficulties because of that labour dispute. Today, I have to tell you that federal replacement worker legislation would shorten labour disputes in Canada and at federally regulated companies. Let replacement workers replace people who want to settle a labour management dispute... The word “replacement” says it all. I lived through this situation for 800 days. Replacement workers are not skilled workers who have learned a trade day after day. Whether it is pilots, letter carriers, journalists or cameramen, replacement workers are people who show up without preparation to do a job that is usually done by people who know what they are doing.

So when you say replacement worker legislation will be harmful to the economy, let it be known that the disasters you anticipate, should conservatives, liberals, bloc and NDP vote in favour of this bill, won't come to pass, but the legislation will avoid the kind of tragedy we experienced in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Radio Nord Communications—and my managers are not here, but they admit this at our weekly labour relations meetings—lost, over the course of this dispute, $0.5 million. Had there been no replacement workers, we would have negotiated faster, settled faster and Radio Nord Communications would not have lost $0.5 million. And above all, two years after the dispute, my co-workers would not be asked to reduce their payroll by the equivalent of 300 hours per week to recover that $0.5 million.

So, the disaster the people from the Conseil du patronat and others anticipate, I have been through it, my 60 co-workers have been through it. So make sure it ends, because preventing management and labour from negotiating is silencing democracy. In my view, Canada, like all provinces of Canada, is a place where democracy rules. Let's make sure it continues to rule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Moreau.

We're over time now. We're going to move to our next questioner.

Mr. Martin, seven minutes, please.