Human Resources Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Winter, for being right on time at seven minutes.

We're going to move to the British Columbia Federation of Labour. We have Mr. Sinclair. Seven minutes, sir.

[Jim Sinclair, President, British Columbia Federation of Labour]

Thank you very much.

I thought I got all their time to respond to them, since I'm the only one.

It probably comes as no surprise to anybody here that the view of a picket line from the lunchroom is a little different from the view from the boardroom. People have different interests on this question at times, and you're balancing out those interests, no question about that.

As a 17-year-old I attended my first picket line. A group of immigrant women were on strike. They were using what we traditionally call “replacement workers” to try to keep the factory running. That day I witnessed two people get run over by a bus. For a kid who didn't have much experience with violence, it was quite an eye-opener as to how labour relations take place--in Ontario in that case--and the kind of violence that takes place on those lines. That had a lasting impression on me in terms of what makes good labour relations. Violence, and the violence that often occurs around replacement workers, and the battle that goes on in communities where we don't have that protection, is a step backwards for labour relations, not a step forward.

This federation represents half a million workers in British Columbia. It comes as no surprise to you that we support this legislation. We believe it brings balance to the Canada Labour Code. We believe it makes collective bargaining and gives it the rights it should have. It doesn't allow a party to go find another party to introduce into the dispute to try to take it in a different direction.

The presenters have pointed out that in 1993 we introduced anti-replacement-worker legislation in British Columbia. At the time it was introduced, John Bagent, who was a member of the panel representing labour and a well-known arbitrator for the rest of his life in the labour movement, said this, and I think it's important to put it in context:

In our visit to Quebec both management and union officials advised us that their worker replacement legislation has worked well and reduced the incidences of picket line violence. In fact, the prohibition was strengthened in 1987 after initial “fears that (the law) would hamstring employers and scare away investment proved unfounded” (Globe and Mail, September 7, 1992). The underlying assumption in the Quebec experience is worth emphasizing at the outset. In a mature collective bargaining relationship the parties recognize that the use of replacement workers does not solve collective bargaining issues; it simply exacerbates them.

In British Columbia, after that was introduced the use of replacement workers dropped to just about zero. The sky did not fall, the economy did not plummet, and employers did not flee, packing their bags for a brighter site somewhere else because of that legislation. In fact, our economy has gone forward and has grown fairly dramatically in the last five years. The existing government would claim that it's the best economy in Canada.

The existing government is worth commenting on. The NDP did bring in this legislation, and it was reviewed by the Liberal government--a pro-business government, at least judging from their donations. So a very strong anti-labour government to our side.... We've had some very big things, including almost general strikes in British Columbia with this government. But they did make a decision in 2001. They announced that they were not going to repeal this legislation, despite an appeal from many of the colleagues at the table today. They said it was about balance at the time, and that balance was not going to be upset by the new government. In fact, it was not a detriment to the economy of British Columbia. In their first term of office they broke a number of promises, but they didn't break that one.

Then we got to 2005 and there was another election--yet another opportunity for the government to change their mind. Of course, the business community argued to change their mind, and at that time they rejected that.

I think it's important for me to read into the record what the labour minister said at that time, because it speaks to many of the arguments being made here today. This labour minister, by the way, was the owner of a small, non-unionized business in British Columbia. It was a well-established grocery business on Vancouver Island--and he was the labour minister.

In responding to a question about the business council's demand to repeal replacement workers, this is what Minister Bruce said:

Why upset what is historically the quietest labour relations in 50 years? Replacement workers won’t attract investors to this area. Investors want to know that there’s labour peace, not war.

I think that captures a lot the same view of the world. It's labour peace we're looking at. Our government would argue that investment has flown to British Columbia dramatically, that we haven't had a downturn. They'd argue that many other factors are much more relevant than this particular one.

I would argue that labour relations have done very well in British Columbia under this. But that is not a government of the left or the centre-left; that's a government of the right, composed mostly of small-business people saying that replacement workers actually don't scare away investment, and that at the same time labour peace is what brings investment. That's what this bill is about--labour peace.

There are a couple of questions about philosophy and arguments on the points of what it means for essential services, and for the ports. In my recollection of British Columbia of about 30 years, I do not remember a time when replacement workers were used in port disputes. I've never seen them being brought into those disputes.

There are provisions. We have a code so that essential services aren't left undone. There are lots of ways to deal with this issue. Actually, I think that if you're relying on strikebreakers to provide essential services, that's actually a backwards step. In fact, it's much better to sit down with the parties and figure out what essential services are required for the parties and to make a decision to do it that way, because I think it's a false and foolish argument that we should have the right to use strikebreakers to provide essential services. I don't think it works.

I would point out, in my last minute, that the Telus dispute was the most recent dispute in which replacement workers were used massively in our province. It dragged on and on, and certainly the balance of power was far in favour of a multinational company that could bring in strikebreakers and export work. The end result was that we lost jobs, and labour relations were set back miles at that company. I have no doubt it would have been a shorter strike--lockout in this particular case--if the company could not have brought in replacement workers and could have, as they always did in the past, operated the company, at least on a minimal level, using their management.

I urge you to have the courage to pass this bill and to go forward with labour relations, not step backwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Sinclair.

We're going to move now to our last witness. From the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, we have Mr. Hattin as well as Mr. Laurin.

Gentlemen, you have seven minutes.

[Jean Michel Laurin, Vice-President, Research and Public Affairs - Quebec Division, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jean Michel Laurin, and I am Vice-President of Research and Public Affairs for the Quebec division of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to express the views of the manufacturing and exporting community on the bill that is before you.

I'm pleased to be accompanied by Mr. Robert Hattin, President of Edson Packaging Machinery Ltd., an Ontario manufacturing firm, and he's one of our active members.

Before continuing, I wish to say a few words about our organization. Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters is the nation's largest trade and industry association. We have members in all ten Canadian provinces. We represent all sectors and sub-sectors of Canada's manufacturing and exporting communities, including equipment manufacturers, such as the one represented by my fellow panellist, in addition to businesses from other industrial sectors.

In Canada, the industrial sector creates 2 million jobs. This may represent 17% of our GDP, but amounts to two thirds of all exports. Two thirds of all Canadian exported goods are manufactured here. The export sector is currently facing significant challenges, but remains very important and constitutes Canada's economic engine.

We are here today because we're opposed to Bill C-257, notably because of the impacts it could have on Canada's exports and also because it prescribes a cure for which we don't see any ill.

Our members at CME depend on Canada's trade infrastructure to ship their products to their clients, to get the raw materials and the machinery they need, and to meet clients and suppliers inside and outside of Canada. The services provided by railway companies, trucking companies, ports, telecommunications service providers, and financial services providers are all essential for us. Without them, manufacturers simply can't operate their businesses, because these services are such an integral part of our operations.

I'll turn it over to Rob, who will explain in greater detail our specific concerns with this piece of legislation.

[Robert Hattin, President, Edson Packaging Machinery, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Thank you, Jean-Michel.

I'm trying to put the face of a small, growing enterprise, based in Ontario, to the effects that we anticipate with Bill C-257. My name is Robert Hattin, and I'm the president and chief executive officer of Edson Packaging Machinery. We're a medium-sized technology company based in Hamilton, 40 kilometres from the New York border. We employ engineers, labourers, accountants, and marketers. We're a very diversified but small and growing organization. Eighty percent of our technology and our products are exported mainly to the U.S.

When we reviewed this, I read the bill and was asked to put the face of Bill C-257 to a small, growing organization, and I came away with this: we see no compelling reason for Bill C-257, and therefore obviously we recommend the rejection of this bill as it is currently written.

Our first issue is that it really is going to undo an act of Parliament that was constructed in 1999. What we see is balance, and I think the gentleman, and even Mr. Sinclair, has indicated that there has not been much labour strife since 1999.

It seems to me—and again, we're a small organization—that the infrastructure we rely on is absolutely important, and our customers, 80% of whom are non-Canadian and rely upon efficient ingress and egress of goods and services, would assume that we have an efficient system for which there are no disputes and there are no disruptions.

My company and tens of thousands of other exporters rely upon these essential services, whether it's trucking companies, ports, railways, telecommunications, banks, and so on. Our economy really is so tightly integrated—it just is—that if any of those shut down, millions of Canadians are not just inconvenienced, they are instantly inconvenienced. People don't get paid. Cashflow goes down the tube, especially for many of the small businesses that are not even exporters.

Let me give you an example on a broader scale. In 1998 there was a strike at a Flint, Michigan, brake plant. They made the brake pads for Chevrolets, of all things. It went on for two months and resulted in a $20-billion economic disruption in Canada, caused layoffs at General Motors in Oshawa, and so forth, because they couldn't get a simple brake pad. That was one strike, one company, and it had that serious an effect.

If we see Bill C-257 going ahead—I flew up here—a strike by a de-icing crew or security workers would disrupt all air travel. And I'm sure that for you, as members who have to go back to your constituencies, those things would certainly be not just inconvenient but inefficient for your representation.

The second issue that struck me was the omnibus size and severity of this bill. As other people have said, it seems like a pill for which there is no ill at the moment. But the part that bothers me, especially, is the fact that it doesn't provide exemption for essential services. I'm not certain, but the way it's written, it just seems so broad-based that it could be very damaging to the safety and security of people who are reliant upon many of these things.

I'll try to put a little bit of a face to what we have seen. We have recently imported equipment from Italy. It went through at least five groups of federally regulated employees. The machine got here in two weeks. Excellent. Our customer, who's in the United States, to whom we'll re-export this, is saying, “Great job; we rely upon that and we'll continue to do business with you.” That's kind of the heightened sense of integration that our economy relies on.

I'd like to just step back and say that when our company does 8,000 banking transactions and 198 flights and mails thousands of letters a year, is this something we really need? For us, I look at the point Mr. Sinclair made. Have we reached that point in our maturity of industrial relations where we need this counterproductive legislation?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to our first round of questioning, with seven minutes of questions and answers, followed by a second round of five minutes.

We're going to start with the official opposition, the Liberal Party, with Mr. Silva for seven minutes.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses who have come before the committee.

This legislation that's before this committee needs guidance particularly from the B.C. and Quebec models, to see what the similarities and the differences are. That is what I think I need to understand further from the witnesses. Unfortunately, there wasn't a great deal of clarification. I'm hoping that with my questions, there could be some.

I had an opportunity to look at part 5 of the Labour Relations Code from British Columbia. From what I read—and I want to make sure this is correct—in terms of the areas of difference between the B.C. model and this particular model, one is on the issue of employees being able to cross the picket line.

A second is the issue in clause 3 of the bill, which talks about $1,000 fines per day. I believe there is a maximum of $10,000 in B.C., so that was the other major difference that I saw between the B.C. code and Bill C-257.

I'm not sure the third one is major or minor, but it's on the issue of the essential service provision of the act, which is paragraph 72(1)(i), it speaks of “health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia”. When it deals with essential services under the present legislation that we have, part I of the Canada Labour Code basically speaks of health and safety as the provisions that need to be resolved before one can go on strike. It seems that the only added caveat is the welfare.

Mr. Jason Koshman, are you a legal expert? I would like to hear from somebody from labour and somebody else from the business community so that I can figure out what the similarities and the differences are between the B.C. code and Bill C-257.

[Doug Alley]

Maybe I can respond somewhat.

There are two big differences that I see. One is the issue of being able to cross the picket line. The other issue is the ability of the employer to operate.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I want you to point that out to me in the legislation.

[Jason Koshman]

Under Bill C-257, at clause 2, a plain reading of proposed subsection 94(2.1) would indicate that you are permitted to use management in some capacity.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'm sorry, but could you repeat that again?

[Jason Koshman]

Let me find the provision. My apologies. It's proposed subsection 94(2.2), on page 2 of the draft bill. The exception reads:

...an employer may use the services of the following persons during a strike or lock-out:

(a) a person employed as a manager, superintendent or foreman...

and so on. On its face, that says an employer who is struck could use a manager or managers to at least keep the viability of the operation going.

If you turn to the next page, under proposed subsection 94(2.4), that supposed ability to use managers is in effect undone by proposed subsection 94(2.4). What it says is:

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....

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order. This is not the first time we have pointed out what appears to be an error in translation. Section 94(2.4) refers to no other section than 94(2.3). The exact same wording can be found in the Quebec Labour Code, which I have here with me. This may not correspond to what our witnesses are stating, Mr. Chair. Perhaps they should be told before beginning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Madame Lavallée, this is not a point of order. Once again, it outlines the difficulty of the bill in the way it's written. These are some of the concerns that we have, and this is what Mr. Silva is trying to figure out.

I'm going to restart your time, Mr. Silva. You have three minutes left.

[Jim Sinclair]

I can respond from labour's point of view, if you want. The fundamental difference is that during a labour dispute in British Columbia, if you were employed by the employer prior to the commencement of collective bargaining, you can walk across the picket line legally. That's the fundamental difference in this. Let me tell you what that leads to.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I don't want to interrupt you, but what I want to know are facts. I want people to show me, in Bill C-257 and the B.C. act, what the similarities and differences are.

[Jim Sinclair]

I can explain to you the basic difference.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Show me where it exists in the bill.

[Jim Sinclair]

I can explain the basic difference. I don't have the bill, but if you want to give me a copy of the bill, I will find it for you. I can explain how it works. I have been under that code for 20 years.

But if you're not.... That's fine. Sorry, I thought you said you wanted to hear from labour.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I do, I do, but I want people to be very specific so I know exactly what the similarities and differences are.

[Doug Alley]

Mr. Sinclair is correct. People may cross the picket line in B.C., as long as they were hired before notice to collective bargaining was given. In effect, this allows the employer to continue to operate, if they so choose, by using people who cross the picket line--which happens rarely in B.C. It also allows them to continue to operate by using managerial staff, as long as it is a normal place of their operation.

I think that's in section 68 of the code. There have been several decisions from the B.C. Labour Relations Board that have interpreted what that means.

That's what I think Mr. Sinclair and I are both saying. As we read it, under the proposed Bill C-257, if you're a struck employer, you're not allowed to do anything. Our contention is that some people think the right to strike is balanced by the right to lock out. We say no, the right to strike is balanced by the right to continue to operate. That balance is not struck in this Bill C-257.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

So are you then saying the conservation measures are the issue of contention? Is it one of the differences from the B.C. bill?

[Doug Alley]

One of the differences, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There are 30 seconds left. Quick question.

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

Hopefully you'll be able to answer this in the 30-second time allotment we have left.

In reading some of the previous transcripts, I believe the B.C. council submitted a letter to the committee. I think you also spoke today about the fact that this bill would actually act as a deterrent to potential investors, as they would be looking for some sort of stability. Do you have any type of empirical evidence at all about how investment in B.C. has been affected? We can take a look right now across the country and B.C. is doing quite well. How will a ban on replacement workers affect investors? Do you have any actual concrete evidence to this effect?