Human Resources Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

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

So I take it that it could be left open for interpretation.

[Elizabeth MacPherson]

It would be up to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to interpret the law.

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

The other question is for Mr. Leduc, who is, I take it, the legal counsel for legal services in employment insurance. Have you done a legal opinion in terms of the determination of essential services?

[Luc Leduc, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Employment Insurance, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

No, we have not.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Let me ask this question, relative to what Ms. Dhalla was asking about.

I want a law that bans replacement workers, but I don't want it if it's going to mean a shutdown of essential services or if it is entirely punitive to companies using employees who are not members of the bargaining unit to do the work. She asked you about somebody doing work in another area or establishment. Specifically, if Aliant has a strike in Atlantic Canada, under this legislation, would it be your view that they could use a manager in Saint John to work in a call centre in Moncton?

[Munir Sheikh]

I don't have the answer to that question.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Do you have anybody who might?

[Munir Sheikh]

Can you answer the question?

[Elizabeth MacPherson]

Again, the definitive answer would have to be given by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, based on the facts of the case as put forward in front of them, and in interpreting whatever act Parliament sees fit to enact.

[Munir Sheikh]

It's not that we're not trying to answer the questions. What we are really doing is saying that the language is not so precise that we can give you a definitive answer. It really is for the board to come to a decision on it.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

We'll come back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll come back to you, Mr. Savage.

I'm going to move to the Bloc, and Mr. Lessard, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank our guests for the information they've given us today.

Mr. Sheikh, my colleague Mr. Lake asked very specific questions concerning the issue of violence, in particular, and that of the balance that might be undermined by this bill. On at least three occasions, you said: “in the minister's view”, “according to the minister”, “what the minister thinks”. Can you tell us whether you're testifying today based on the minister's opinion or based on your own opinion as a senior official?

[Munir Sheikh]

I was trying to be quite clear, but obviously I wasn't. My position is that I am trying to be as helpful as I can to the committee members. In trying to be helpful, I am doing my very best to answer questions with responses of a factual and analytical nature.

The policy issue belongs to the minister and to the government. If the minister has spoken on a policy issue here in the committee, I know where he stands. On that policy issue, I can give you the view in terms of what the minister thinks. If the minister hasn't decided on a policy issue, I have no information on it, of course, and I cannot provide any information in that situation.

So I am giving you factual, analytical responses to questions of that nature. To the extent possible, I would communicate to you the information on policy issues that the minister already has provided to the committee in this very situation.

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

All right. I see that that's the minister's opinion, in some respects.

My questions are for you, as an official, since your position gives you privileged access to a certain amount of information. If you don't know the answer, I would prefer that you tell me you don't know. Then I'll know that it's your opinion, not that of the minister.

Today you've submitted some statistics on the basis of which you say that, where there is anti-strike breaking legislation, that's not what influences the number of disputes. You also said you thought that we had to make sure the current balance was not disrupted. You seem to say that there currently is a balance. Did I understand you correctly?

[Munir Sheikh]

I'll answer with two very simple questions. One, am I concerned about the existing balance and worried about disturbing it? My answer to that is that it's not my prerogative to worry about that, it's the minister's.

On the question of—

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

I simply want to know whether or not you think there is currently a balance. I thought I heard you say there was a balance. Did I understand correctly?

[Munir Sheikh]

Yes, there is a balance in the accord, based on the law that was designed by the people at the time who said they were establishing a balance in the accord.

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

In your view, does the fact that there is violence on the picket lines respect that balance?

Are you aware that there has been violence on the picket lines in disputes such as those involving Radio-Nord, Cargill, Vidéotron and Sécur?

[Munir Sheikh]

Obviously in some circumstances there is violence. As I said, we don't keep statistics on violence because it's hard to define, but that there is some violence is quite obvious. If it exists—and I acknowledged my problem in response to an earlier question on the same issue—it's not quite clear how I, as an analyst, would deal with it.

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

My question supplements that of Mr. Lake, which I think is important. What is violence, in your view? When a person exercises a right and the police are brought in in order to replace that person, is that violence, in your opinion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Sheikh, you can respond, but with just a quick answer, as we're out of time.

[Munir Sheikh]

I think I've already accepted my inability to define both violence and how I would factor that into policy-making.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. That's all the time we have.

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to come back to this question of replacement workers and essential services. An impression is being left here that if you cannot use replacement workers, you cannot provide essential services. As I understand it, the reality is that, first of all, most employers faced with a strike don't use replacement workers. We already know that, by the minister's own admission. He himself has put that on the record. In fact, he uses it as an argument as to why we don't need the legislation. We're talking about a very small number of employers that do use replacement workers, and what the impact and consequences of doing that are.

This idea that you can't provide essential services if you can't use replacement workers is completely erroneous. In the Labour Code now, section 87.4 makes it very clear that “the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.” It then goes on to detail that there are mechanisms that either the employer, the union, or the minister can use to make an intervention to get that determination set down.

I'd like to ask Mr. Leduc if he could take us through section 87.4 and point out the steps that exist in the code now and that are used by the board to establish what essential services are. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can have replacement workers. Could you do that, please?