Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

It's the strike deadline? If you go on strike--this will be CN--you're going to basically shut down, but what about all the people who depend on you to ship their goods? We're talking about farmers mainly, who should have the sympathy of the nation because they've gone through lots. We're talking about their trying to meet their commitments to their buyers. Who speaks for them? You have your union and the CN. And I'll tell you, the CN has issues with farmers too. So when you go on strike--I'm just wondering--are you thinking about what the union would do to the country without some replacement legislation or what it would do to our economy?

Don't you think this is missing in the debate of how important it is that there be absolutely no interruption in shipping when it comes...? It would never be deemed essential. No grains would be deemed essential, but it is essential for farmers to get that grain to the port. So if you decide to do this in February, which is just about the time the Canadian Wheat Board starts shipping out some grains, you have caused some undue harm to somebody who has no control, no power, right?

[Tim Secord]

Well, no; perhaps it's just a phrasing of the question, but you're right, we would be a part--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

No, we're talking hypothetically too, because this is what they're telling us from the other side. Mr. Dryden said everything's hypothetical. No, that isn't hypothetical--that's a truth. That will happen.

[Tim Secord]

If there is a strike, absolutely, somebody's going to be adversely affected somewhere, no question. And you were right in the example you gave: the movement of Canadian wheat this winter could possibly be affected. Do we have a concern about those farmers? Absolutely. But we have to remember, it's not just the union in the bargaining relationship; it's the employer, and the employer had every opportunity to apply section 87.4 and refused to. So the employer has to--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

It's between you and the employer.

[Tim Secord]

No, it's between this committee and that employer as well, because you're asking me the question and trying to hold my union accountable for the actions of a strike that we have the right to exercise under the code. But it doesn't appear that CN will be held to the same level of accountability.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I'm not asking you to say that you don't have the right to strike. That you do have, and I've no problems with that. But the fact is if that grain stops and there are no replacement workers, that grain will not get to the coast. The farmers will not meet their commitments, and then there will be a huge economic shutdown for the farmers. They can't afford to have those kinds of things happening.

I think the legislation is really doing more harm to the economy and to the consumers and the people of Canada than it is to a union or the employer, because you can choose another employer. You can go work for CP. CN can shut down. We don't have that choice. We only have CN, and we need you. So I think you're not giving the people who depend on you....This legislation takes the balance out of the bargaining.

[Tim Secord]

But that's the economic pressure the union relies on. The only thing they can do when they go on strike is to force some kind of economic pressure on the employer, in this case, CN. Where would they feel it from? They'd feel the pinch coming from those farmers who are saying “What are you doing? We have to move our grain.” The point is to push them towards a settlement.

On the issue of balance, if a union chooses to go on strike, right now the employer can use replacement workers. Right now, the way the code is written, if that same employer locks the employees out, he can also use replacement workers. So where's the level of balance and fairness in that scenario when he's got his cake and he can eat it too? He has it both ways.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

But the debate is about federal legislation that right now has struck a balance. The debate should be on what is good for this country, because it is huge in trade, and exports are so important. That's where the debate has to go. Between you and your union, I think you have that balance--or, I would say, having listened to all of the presenters, you have a good balance.

If you have problems with CN, to tell you the truth, so do the farmers. Are you going to go to bat for the farmer and say that CN shouldn't charge those farmers so much for hauling that grain because that's unfair? You know what they're going to say? They're going to ask if you'd like to take a wage cut.

I think you're missing something in the debate. I think you have your balance. The people who rely on shipping to the coast don't have the balance because they are international. They're in the global trading market.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Please make just a quick final comment. We're out of time, but go ahead, Mr. Secord.

[Tim Secord]

If I may, Ms. Yelich, just so you know, a lot of our members are farmers and we have always gone to bat for the farming community in western Canada and eastern Canada. We don't leave the farmers hanging out there to dry. We understand the comments about captive shippers. We know it very well, and we support those farmers 100%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Yelich, that's all the time we have right now, but thank you for that.

We're going to move to our next round, and the Liberals. You're all done?

Okay, then we're going to move back to one last questioner. We'll go to Mr. Wallace for five minutes, and then we'll be done.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate being here today. I'm substituting on the committee, so I haven't really had the length of debate everyone else at the table has had.

Just as a little background on me, I'm actually from a union household. My father is retired now, but he worked in a union at Ontario Hydro, although he made it to management and got out of the union. I actually experienced a number of strikes, one lasting about four months, when my father was still in the union. It was not a happy time at my household when that happened. My sister and my brother-in-law work at a professional organization. They don't like to call it a union, but that's really what it is.

One of my questions is for our union representatives here today. We're talking about balance. I agree that the piece should be about balance. It's my understanding—and I think it happened with my father—that when you go on strike, you can find another job while you're on strike, and you can work. At this point in my opinion, it is not really fair that a person can go on strike and still get employment elsewhere, but the company has no repercussions for that based on what you'd like to do in terms of replacement workers.

In their case, there were no replacement workers. It was at a nuclear plant, so they're not easy to train in order to get it operating. Management ran the place, which is another issue altogether.

So my first question to you, sir, is that if you want to change it so that there are no replacement workers, should workers not be able to get second jobs when they're on strike?

[Tim Secord]

Do you mean strikebound workers?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes. If my father was on strike, he went and got another job. Maybe the legislation should be saying that if you're putting a company at risk by not working for them, then you're not allowed to work, period. I want to know how you feel about that.

[Tim Secord]

I think you'd have a problem with the ILO, to start with, because I'd certainly make sure they were coming after you.

Absolutely not. That's insane. How do you restrict somebody from having the right to go on strike? You enshrine it in the legislation, and then you tell them that, by the way, they can only exercise it in circumstances where they promise not to go get another job.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's exactly my point, sir. But you're sitting on the other side of the table and you're telling the employer, the company, that based on this legislation, if it passes, they cannot hire somebody to replace that worker who has gone on strike. I don't think it's a balance. A person, as an employee, can go get another job somewhere else while they're on strike, but the employer cannot get somebody to replace that person who is on strike. How is that balanced?

If you want a balanced system—which I think the present legislation, not the one proposed, actually supports—then if you're on strike, that's fine. For the 3% of strikes that actually happen, which is the number you used today, if there is a need for a replacement worker who has ability to do the job—and that's not the case in all cases, because there are unionized jobs for people who have special skills sets, so let's be realistic that they are not replaceable by people off the street without a lot of training and so on to make that happen—does the present legislation not give balance both to the employer and the employee in the present situation?

[Tim Secord]

Absolutely not, but I do appreciate the fact that you recognize there are special skill sets out there. Not everybody can do everybody's job.

In answer to the question, no, the fairness is not there, because the employer.... If you say to the unions, the workers, that they have the right to strike but it's hollow because they can now be replaced with replacement workers, and that the economic pressure that they can bring to bear on the employer is moot, what's the point of having the right to strike?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I absolutely disagree that it's moot, because you already admitted that a replacement worker cannot necessarily, in a lot of jobs, replace the skill set that was there with the people who are on strike. It's not a moot job. What you said earlier in your presentation was that the only recourse for the company under this new legislation would be to get back to the table and negotiate, because they have no other recourse. But the employee has recourse by going on strike and getting another job. I don't think that is fair, so I think there should be a change.

The only other thing I want to let you know is that the public service came to see me in my office. I asked them directly when the last time was that they were on strike. They gave me a number of dates when they've been on strike, and I asked them when the Government of Canada has ever replaced the workers. It has never happened that they know of. The people I was speaking to could be wrong, but they were the heads of the union, so I'm assuming they're right.

My point is, why would we want to change the legislation when, in your own numbers, you say there are strikes only about 3% of the time? In the vast majority of cases, it's almost impossible for replacement workers to do the job that is there, so are we not wasting a lot of time on an issue that is not of public importance at this particular time, based on the review that was done in 1990?

Am I all done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You're all done.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madame Lavallée would like me to talk for another fifteen minutes, because she knows I can do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Lessard, did you have a quick point before we move on to motions?

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

Our colleague Wallace has raised a very important point. I think that it was not raised here, for good reason. The people who appeared before the committee understand that the bill does not prevent the employer from continuing to produce by using management. This is the first point.

The gentleman asked the question and he might be interested in the answer. Only two elements are missing from the picture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's a point of debate, so we're going to leave that for now.

I do want to thank the witnesses right now—

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

There is an inaccurate statement. First, management is allowed to work; then, the employees—