Human Resources Committee on Feb. 11th, 2014

[Robyn Benson]

Certainly for us we have been organizing, and it's not something that those who we were organizing have called for, nor those who are currently organized have called for.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Your department wouldn't be inundated with concerns about this as an issue?

[Anthony Giles]

No.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

The Sims report, of which I'm sure Mr.Smith has an autographed copy, should be a reference point for any changes to the labour code going forward. But it's clearly stated there that legislation should only be changed when it's no longer working or serving the public's best interest—that's one of the reasons—and also, that it's done on a consensus basis.

Nothing has changed with the stakeholders, nothing has changed, from your view...that the current system was not working—number one—or that it wasn't serving the public's interest.

[Hassan Yussuff]

If I can, Mr. Cuzner, we have a very good system in place. I know people are maybe shocked to hear this, but we have a very good system in the Canada Labour Code structure. Its work has been very effective. Yes, from time to time there will be issues that the parties can reach an agreement on. But the department, in regard to the services it provides, helps the parties bridge those challenges there.

We do have a good code, because the right balance was found by ensuring that no parties are disenfranchised in regard to how the code has been rewritten when the last major changes came about from Sims. So we need to start by remembering that foundation.

The reality is that it works for both sides. We didn't get all the things we wanted in terms of labour, nor did my friends from the employers' side get everything they wanted, but we both recognized it was the right balance that was found. We both accepted the end result of what that code represents today.

[John Farrell]

FETCO genuinely values pre-legislative consultation. We think we can make it work. We do engage with the unions. We have a good working relationship. Our objective is to try to solve problems and reach collective agreements satisfactorily without disruptions of the workforce.

[Magali Picard]

We are very proud of the Canada Labour Code. I would go so far as to say that people around the world would like to imitate it. I believe that here in Canada, we have a certain history, a degree of maturity, a relationship that has existed for many years that allows us to raise issues and deal with them with various governments. I find it extremely sad that a problem is being created where none exists.

Do you want me to repeat the last phrase?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

No, that's great.

I just want to get one quick one in with Mr. Smith.

For those on the committee who aren't aware of the Sims report, give just an overview of the consultation that went into that document.

[George Smith]

Well, there was a management and union—

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I'm sorry, you're going to have to answer that perhaps in another round of questions; we're just over time there. We will try to get that in.

We're on to Mr. Mayes for five minutes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'm a backbencher, that's my title. It's interesting because I have some rights with that. I have a right to bring forward a private member's bill on any issue except for something that's going to spend money. I think we've got to be very cautious here as we discuss that if this were a government bill, a process of consultation would have taken place about those issues that Mr. Smith and Mr. Farrell brought forward.

This is a private member's bill, and this is the public way that we are dealing with this private member's bill. I think you need to keep that in perspective. As the department said, they have not done any research or had any consultation with regard to this bill. I think that is a right I have and I think you shouldn't deny that right, for me to bring something forward that I believe my constituents want. Let's not think it's the government's bill. Many bills have been brought forward by private members in our government that I voted against because I didn't agree with them, but they had the right to do that. Let's be clear on that.

The question now is the bill. Mr. Farrell, you've talked about the mandatory private voting, secret ballot, as being a good part of this bill, but you talked about the threshold of 45% might be a little bit high. Do you see some amendments that this bill could have, and I ask this to each one of you, that maybe this bill could work, or is it absolutely not going to work? I'm sure you have different opinions about that. I think this is going to be reviewed. This is the purpose of these discussions with you, to see what actions might be an option on this bill for this committee. I've got open ears and I'm open-minded.

Madam Blatt, you haven't had a chance to speak yet.

[Shannon Blatt, Legal Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

The question is amendments that we would wish to see to this bill. First, I think we would prefer to see the threshold for the filing of an application for certification or decertification remain where it is.

Critically, as I think it's been touched on by other witnesses, we think it is absolutely crucial that the outcome of any vote conducted be determined by a majority of the actual ballots cast, and that we eliminate the possibility that a non-vote could count as a “no” vote. That's just fundamentally undemocratic and unfair, in our view.

Another very important amendment, I think, would be to address the problem that we see in the amendment to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, where in fact despite what we've heard about majoritarian principles, we see a tyranny of the minority in that amendment, where a mere 45% of voters can decertify a union. We're completely at a loss to understand how that could be consistent with any democratic notion whatsoever.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I've got limited time. Can I give it to Mr. Smith and Mr. Farrell to make a comment?

Mr. Farrell first.

[John Farrell]

Thank you, Mr. Mayes.

First of all, we obviously respect the right of members of Parliament to present private member's bills, but we do make a comment that in the context of labour relations it's something that you have to consider very seriously because governments will change. It's a slippery slope. We don't want political ideologies to be fought in labour relations legislation because that only hurts labour and management. We want you to understand, from the practitioners, that this is a serious issue for us in terms of the way we prefer to deal with labour relations legislation. The shoe can be on the other foot after any general election.

With respect to your questions regarding the bill itself, we support, for both certification and desertification, a secret ballot process with 50% plus one of the people who vote in determining the outcome. With respect to the threshold of determining whether or not a vote should take place, when you consider what happens in other jurisdictions and you understand that you have to have some threshold before you engage in an important process like this, we would say a threshold somewhere between 40% and 45% makes sense. We think that is a fair balance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

We've run out of time again.

Mr. Smith, I'm sorry about that. That's two in a row for you. Hopefully we can get your views out on other questions here.

On to Mr. Marston for five minutes.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by putting something on the record. I had 28 years in the labour movement as a voluntary president and vice-president of the communication workers for Bell Canada and 14 years, again non-salaried, as the president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Farrell, in the subtext of what you've been saying here today, I think you've both hit the nail on the head. It's not appropriate for a private member's bill to move forward such significant changes as proposed recently in Bill C-377 and currently in Bill C-525.

It's pretty clear to us—and we're allowed to have a divergence of opinion—that this is ideologically driven. It has not been given the due consultations, and I would suggest that the committee would be well advised to forgo this piece of legislation in favour of government legislation. If we go through the consultative process as we should, and it calls for change, that's very important. We've had 70 years of labour peace.

Mr. Smith, you pointed out capital investment at risk. I'd like you to expand on that, if you would, sir.

[George Smith]

First of all, let me say we've dealt with, through the consultative process, some very difficult issues. That's an arena where partisan issues can be discussed and debated. The overwhelming view of the governments of those times, though, was a workable piece of legislation that practitioners can embrace, but we didn't always agree. Government sometimes made decisions and enacted legislation, but they heard us out. That's the difficulty with the process we face.

The evidence in Ontario was that when they had the wild swings in labour policy as a result of change in government, as the world got more global and competition got more international, companies that were going to revitalize their plants or companies that were considering investment in Ontario took one look at that environment for business and said that they could find a different environment where they wouldn't have to deal with those wild swings in labour legislation.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Banks, with your experience, sir, are you aware of any precedent of a 45% decertification threshold, and is it possible that this bill violates the conventions of the ILO?

[Kevin Banks]

When you talk about the 45% threshold, you're talking about the one for the public sector labour relations legislation?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's right.

[Kevin Banks]

No, I'm not. That would be unprecedented.

Yes, it could possibly violate our commitments under convention 87 of the International Labour Organization. That provides the right to organize and implicitly the right to bargain collectively. We have undertaken under article 8 of that convention not to enact laws that would impair those rights.

If you have a law that effectively allows a minority.... Let's say you have a situation where 100% of the bargaining unit turned out to vote, and only 54% of them supported the union, under the legislation as I understand it, that would produce a situation where the majority didn't have the right to organize under the legislation. There isn't any alternative mechanism under other legislation. That could be a potential problem from the perspective of our compliance with ILO convention 87.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

My friend Mr. Mayes across the way talked about the private member's bill and the right. I certainly respect that, sir, because it is certainly a right of any member to put forward anything that they see as in the interest of their particular constituency.

On the other hand, when you look at the impact that this can have on hundreds of thousands of federal jurisdiction workers around the country, Mr. Banks, wouldn't you advise that it would have made a lot more sense to have this as a bill from the government where it had proper consultation?

[Kevin Banks]

I have a lot of sympathy for that view. I haven't prepared remarks on that, but I did spend some time as an official in the federal labour program earlier in my career. There was a great deal of emphasis there, I think well advised emphasis, on building consensus among the stakeholders to the extent that was possible, getting their buy-in for legislation, particularly in labour relations legislation where, at the end of the day, it's a framework for their relationships. They should have a strong say in influencing the public policy and helping to shape a workable framework that will serve both parties well in the long run.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Cuzner for another round.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chair.

I want to echo the sentiments of Mr. Marston with regard to the private member's bill, and with the utmost respect for Mr. Mayes, whom I have a great deal of respect for, but you know we're looking at the usual list of suspects trying to bring some sense to something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We've been through this with Bill C-377, and here we are again sort of thing.

Mr. Calkins said it was motivated by people in his constituency. This is my 14th year here and I've never had a constituent come up and say this is really a burning issue in my riding. His comments in the House were:

...we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.

Mr. Giles, could you give us some indication as to what the numbers are? You guys have done some work on this already. What are the problems? What's the level of the issue?