Human Resources Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Alley, a quick response. We'll maybe have to pick it up in the next round.

[Doug Alley]

The very quick response is that our economy is booming, in spite of the replacement worker legislation. But we get a lot of phone calls in our office from potential investors wanting to know if we still have the replacement worker provision. They don't want to put an investment at risk, and they have said that as long as that's there that's one thing they would have to consider very strongly before investing in the province.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

But there is no research data?

[Doug Alley]

No, there is not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Alley and Ms. Dhalla.

We're going to move now to the Bloc. Madame Lavallée, seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wish to begin by telling you that I am a bit taken aback by the type of remarks being made by the employers' representatives. However, in another way, I am not very surprised. I am surprised by the fact that you do not seem to have examined the information very carefully before making your comments. Most of you have already met with national representatives. I am referring to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose representatives appeared before us and made arguments similar to yours. We countered their arguments and that is why I am surprised that you are coming back with the same false arguments raised by representatives of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

I am also surprised because many other employers' representatives have appeared and made certain comments. For example, the Canadian Bankers Association forecast a total catastrophe for the banking system, although less than 1% of its employees are unionized. This bill does not really affect them.

Representatives from the Canadian Railway Association also predicted a catastrophe. According to them, Canadian railways would all of a sudden cease to operate if this bill were to pass, but we all know very well that even if they wanted to hire replacement workers, they are unable to do so because railway workers are simply irreplaceable.

Representatives from the Canadian Airports Council also predicted a major disruption. A few years ago, there were strikes at Canadian airports, including the one in Quebec City. The strike lasted several months, and went unnoticed. It was not because people stopped travelling to Quebec—on the contrary, people go often. The reason is because under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code—Mr. Hattin, I believe you will want to take note of this—employees are prohibited from going on strike if there is a threat to public security. This is the case, for example, for workers in charge of defrosting aircraft wings.

On the other hand, there have been many examples given of businesses that are not subject to the Canada Labour Code. For example, Mr. Winter talked to us about the case of bakeries. What is the point of mentioning them? We know that bakeries are not governed by the Canada Labour Code and that they will not be subject to bill C-257 once it is adopted. In addition, Mr. Hattin also talked about packing businesses. I am not quite sure, but I am not under the impression that those businesses are subject to the Canada Labour Code either.

As well, representatives from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce talked to us about the famous section 94(2.4) and predicted a catastrophe, because bill C-257 would spell out the end of a business. I then set the record straight. I would be more than pleased to provide you with the same explanation, but I hope that those who will appear in the future will read today's transcripts, or if they are here in the room, those people will listen and not repeat the same thing. You can understand that I am a bit frustrated by having to constantly repeat the same things.

Sections 94(2.3) and 94(2.4) and the entirety of bill C-257 are identical to the provisions of the Quebec Labour Code, word for word. Sections 94(2.3) and 94(2.4) match section 109.3 of the Quebec Labour Code. Unfortunately, I cannot table a copy of this provision, because it is only in French, since it is a Quebec piece of legislation. Therefore, I will read the provision and our interpreters will translate. You can check for yourselves. The respective provisions are identical. Section 109.3 of the Quebec Labour Code therefore reads as follows:

The application of section 109.1 does not have the effect of preventing an employer from taking, if need be, the necessary measures to avoid the destruction or serious deterioration of his property. Such measures must exclusively be conservation measures and not measures designed to enable the continuation of the production of goods and services which section 109.1 would not permit otherwise.

I hope that I didn't read the passage too quickly and that the interpreter was able to translate properly, but this is exactly as it is written in the Quebec Labour Code. this section refers to a preceding section, just as section 94(2.4) refers to the preceding section 94(2.3).

Did you understand, or do I need to repeat it? Did you understand? Silence gives consent. I can therefore gather that you have understood that there will be no catastrophe and that a company subject to the Canada Labour Code will remain in a good position to keep operations running, even under the provisions of bill C-257, with the help of its managers and the managers in the branches that go on strike.

Bill C-257 would allow for all services to be grouped into one single branch, if several branches are on strike with the same union. This is exactly what has been going on for the last 30 years. Quebec has been operating this way since 1977, and it is now 2007. It has therefore been 30 years, and there has been no catastrophe.

Mr. Winter, you're not the only one to have made an error in jurisdiction. The Minister of Labour came before the committee and said that the outlook was horrible, because 911 services would be completely paralyzed if workers went on strike. 911 workers have been governed by the Quebec Labour Code for the last 30 years. There have been strikes, and services were not paralyzed because Quebec was able to invoke something else: essential services. Essential services as defined in the Canada Labour Code are quite similar to those set out in the Quebec Labour Code. The only difference, from my interpretation, is the creation of a council for essential services.

The council of essential services was not at all created in reaction to Quebec's anti-scab legislation. The council was set up in 1975 whereas the anti-scab law was enacted in 1977 following the demands of unionized public servants, particularly those working in health care. Union members wanted to be able to go on strike in a responsible fashion, and as such, asked for a law and regulations which would allow them to do so.

I must also say that health care services are just as important as banking, railway and airline services.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Madame Lavallée.

I know Mr. Laurin wanted a quick comment. We're out of time, but we'll hear just a quick comment.

[Jean Michel Laurin]

Allow me to answer very briefly.

I'm getting tired of the constant comparison between the BC system or the Quebec system to the federal system, because we are not seeking to regulate the same things. Economic activities are regulated by the federal government. This is what we have been trying to explain to you since this morning. Essential economic activities are somewhat like the channels that link the Canadian economy with the rest of the world.

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

Aren't doctors and medical specialists essential as well? Aren't they important? Are trains more important than health care professionals? My goodness!

[Jean Michel Laurin]

Allow me to make a second comment. Mr. Hattin knows that he must respect provincial regulations and has taken the time to travel and share his concerns with you. He said that he had to import machinery to serve his clients in the United States, and showed to what extent Canadian trade infrastructure is crucial for a business such as his.

In conclusion, you are accusing us of making false arguments. I find this to be rather harsh, even more so since our colleague who represents workers said that in order to spur investment, it is very important to maintain peaceful labour relations. In addition, he recommended that the government of his province, British Columbia, not change its laws because labour relations in that province are quite good.

Labour relations at the federal level are peaceful. Why is the government so adamant to amend a law that has allowed a delicate balance to be maintained for several years? We believe that it is not crucial to amend this law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

We're going to move now to Ms. Davies, for seven minutes.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

First of all, thank you to the witnesses for coming today from B.C.

I have a couple of observations. I think it's important to note in looking at this bill that we have two pieces of legislation in existence, in B.C. and Quebec, that we can learn a lot from. I think that's very important. A number of the witnesses today have spoken about how they don't like strikes and what they do. Well, nobody likes strikes. Not even workers like strikes. They're used as a last resort. That's a given.

I think what we need to establish is what is working on the ground, and what's happening in British Columbia and in Quebec is something that is of genuine interest and value, for us to determine what it is we need to do at the federal level in terms of this bill. I think Mr. Sinclair made a very important observation in that quotation saying that a mature collective bargaining relationship does not use replacement workers.

I think there's an irony there. The irony is that somehow, if you can bring in replacement workers, you will be furthering your cause, and that you will be moving your company further ahead or will be dealing with the problems you have. What I find very interesting in both of these provinces is that the evidence is really strong that legislation that bans replacement workers actually produces a stable environment. I really haven't heard anybody dispute that. You may not like it and you may, just as a political thing, go back to the government and say you don't like this stuff, but I haven't actually heard anybody argue that the legislation in B.C. doesn't work.

So I think the observation Mr. Sinclair made is a really important one, that banning replacement workers actually does ensure that a labour dispute is resolved in a much more reasonable and rational way. I would argue that the Telus dispute, for example, because we didn't have a ban on replacement workers, went on much longer and was quite nasty. That's why it's important to learn from what has happened.

I'd like to go back to Mr. Sinclair, because I think you got cut off when you were trying to explain what it is that this legislation in B.C. actually does. I don't know how familiar you are with the Quebec model, but if you feel that you can compare them, please do. I feel that we need to understand how this legislation is working in B.C. and why it has produced the kind of stability that people have spoken about. So I invite you to basically continue with your comments on that.

[Jim Sinclair]

Thank you. I want to reiterate that I think for mature labour relations to take place, there has to be a level playing field, and this provides some of that.

What I was going to say was that the difference in the legislation as I understand it.... I'm no lawyer or legal expert on this, but I certainly have lived through many strikes and lockouts. The difference is that under our labour code and this provision, you can bring in replacement workers from the existing work force, which means that the door is open for that to happen.

That has led to a lot of disputes. Employers have been known to pump up their numbers before the bargaining begins so that they have enough people. They bring people in specifically to do that, and there is a question of who is an employee and at what point. You get a lot of legal wrangling about who is and who isn't an employee.

Let me just say that where that has happened, in my experience with the disputes I have been called in to help with as the president of the Federation of Labour, the toughest ones to solve are the ones where you have a handful of workers who decide to follow the boss's lead and, for whatever reason—good, bad, or ugly—have gone to work. Now the dispute is no longer over getting a collective agreement. It's what to do with the people who went to work.

The boss is totally ingrained with supporting those people, because they have been loyal. The people outside, which is usually the vast majority, are pretty angry. And so now you have this division, such that you're spending all your time trying to figure that problem out and not solving what the dispute was over to start with.

Most of those places haven't successfully operated, and so my appeal is, don't try to do it half-assed. That was a compromise with the business community at the time, I guess, to get the legislation. We didn't support it. We wanted the outright ban.

So I think you have to look at what you are trying to accomplish. What you are trying to accomplish is mature labour relations. Our labour code is different in that sense—it leaves that door open—and in fact it is a weakness, in our situation in British Columbia, that this present government hasn't run to fix for us.

On the Telus dispute, there's no question in my mind that it made a longer, uglier dispute. The feeling in the labour movement is that if you bring in replacement workers, you're out to bust the union, because it's so hard to put back together at the end of it—the labour relations are so ugly—that it's not a place to do it.

To suggest for a second that we're going to bring in replacement workers to run airlines and run the docks and do all that stuff, and that if we don't do this—if we pass this law—then these people won't be able to do that, is ridiculous. You won't do it. It would be a war, and it's a war we don't need. We need good labour relations.

So I don't think at this point.... We are talking about a small handful of employers who abuse the situation around collective bargaining, who are not committed to a progressive and productive relationship with their employees. Most of the people represented at this table would never dream of doing it. Most laws, though, we make for the people who behave in bad ways, not good ways.

In my time in British Columbia I've never seen the government use replacement workers in a public sector strike. I've just never seen it. Stephen Harper may want to do that. It's a possibility, and maybe this law wants to leave the door open for that, but I think most people have figured out it's a bad idea. All we're saying is, let's make sure it's a bad idea for everybody.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lampert, did you have a quick response?

[Jerry Lampert]

I was wondering if I could make a quick response.

Jim posed the rhetorical question, “What are you trying to accomplish here?” That still is the fundamental question we're trying to grapple with. The record since the Sims task force and the legislation that followed clearly indicates that there's no need for this legislation, that the current system is working.

So we have trouble understanding why, at this particular time, there's a need for a major change to current federal labour code legislation. It's being done in such a way as to really fly in the face of the kind of relationship we've developed in British Columbia, where the sides are willing to sit down at the table and work through any changes that are necessary in labour code and employment standards.

Jim Sinclair's organization and my organization try to cooperate in a number of ways, but when it comes to major changes to the labour code, we have a process and a system in B.C. that allows the parties to be at the table discussing these things. I fail to see in the current approach to Bill C-257 how that's been done, and I fail to see how it's going to make a significant positive change to an environment that's already positive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lampert.

That's all the time. We're actually over, Ms. Davies.

We're going to move to the final round of the first round, seven minutes for Mr. Lake.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Sinclair, do you have a copy of Bill C-257 in front of you?

[Jim Sinclair]

Yes.

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

Would you turn to proposed subsection 94(2.4)? I just want to clarify something that was brought up by Ms. Lavallée earlier. I want you to just read that section into the record.

[Jim Sinclair]

You want me to read it into the record?

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

Yes.

[Jim Sinclair]

Do you have trouble with it? You can't read it yourself into the record?

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

No, just read it. I want you to read it.

[An hon. member]

Read it in French.

[Jim Sinclair]

Read it in French--I wish, sister, I wish.

Subsection 94(2.4):

The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).