Bill C-257 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.
The enactment also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[John Winter, Vice-Chair, Coalition of BC Businesses]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. My name is John Winter, and I'm here to represent the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. I'm also the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

The B.C. chamber is one of 16 business associations that comprise the coalition, which has been acting on behalf of 50,000 or more small and medium-sized businesses since 1992. The coalition supports labour policies that will help foster a positive working relationship between employers and employees and a climate for economic growth and jobs. We are relieved the committee agreed to expand its consultation on this critical piece of proposed legislation.

We speak on this issue with some authority and some experience. As you may know, B.C. has a legislated ban on replacement workers, and has had it since 1993. Over that time, we have become quite familiar with the same myths and misinformation that proponents of Bill C-257 have been offering up. Chief among them is the erroneous assumption that a ban on replacement workers levels the playing field between labour and management.

Take, for example, a neighbourhood bakery in Vancouver and the relative leverage of the parties involved in a labour dispute. On the one hand, the striking employees have the ability to continue earning a livelihood by working elsewhere if they so choose, a scenario quite likely in today's hot economy and worker shortage. On the other hand, the bakery owner's ability to maintain his livelihood, without staff, is all but eliminated. Remarkably, it's against the law in B.C. for him to even hire family members to keep those ovens operating. All the owner can do is to carry on under the burden of an over-worked and over-stressed management, who are putting in extra hours and doing the job of multiple employees for the length of the strike, which could be months.

There is no sure outcome for that bakery owner. The striking employee is legally guaranteed his job when the strike is over, a principle that the coalition supports. The union is guaranteed the right to bring in replacement pickets to keep the pressure on for as long as it takes, but the employer has no ability to take action to keep that business afloat. His entire investment is at risk.

Meanwhile, loyal customers are taking their business elsewhere to avoid the strike. Fewer bakery goods are sold, and sales will drop. It will be an uphill and costly battle for the baker to win back lost business after the employees return to work—that is, if there is still a viable business to come back to.

Small businesses in British Columbia know they have little choice about whether or not to endure a strike. They simply cannot do so. The options a small-business owner faces in this so-called level playing field are essentially three: to shut down; to give in to union demands to avoid a strike that it knows it cannot withstand; or thirdly, in the event of a strike, to seek a quick settlement rather than a settlement that serves the long-term viability of the enterprise and the jobs it supports.

In British Columbia, it is no wonder that owners of many small and medium-sized businesses likened the ban on replacement workers to a gun pointed at the heads of employers.

In the coalition's view, the ban on replacement workers tilts bargaining power excessively toward unions and undercuts the effectiveness of the negotiation process. It is that fundamental imbalance that explains why opposition of B.C.'s employer community to the replacement-worker ban remains undiminished 13 years after it was introduced.

As my colleagues from the B.C. Business Council have noted, this bill is more damaging than the B.C. legislation in several respects. Instead of restricting itself to banning replacement workers, Bill C-257 even prevents employers from attempting to operate their own business during a strike. For example, the owner of a small interprovincial trucking operation cannot even drive the truck himself during a strike. Bill C-257 prohibits him from engaging in any productive work to try to keep that business running.

The second point is that employees of the business are not permitted to disagree with their union and to cross the picket line to do the job during the strike. This is permitted in British Columbia, but would be outlawed under Bill C-257.

On December 7, the president of Teamsters Canada stated before this committee that Bill C-257 is about dignity and respect for workers. How does depriving Canadian employees of their fundamental right to dissent from their unions' decisions and choose to work further dignity and respect for workers? This is imposition of union solidarity through legislation.

The coalition wonders whether these provisions of Bill C-257 would be consistent with the freedom of association and the freedom of expression protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There can be no question that Bill C-257 is wholly inconsistent with another principal tenet of labour law; that is, the spillover effect of labour disputes between a particular employee and its union. Any spillover should be limited as much as possible to avoid harming third parties who are not involved in the labour dispute.

This bill applies to federally regulated companies that are vital to the national economy, such as transportation, telecommunications, and financial services. Granting organized labour the ability to shut these businesses entirely, through Bill C-257, would have a catastrophic domino effect extending far beyond the direct impact to federally regulated businesses.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are third parties to a labour dispute and have much to lose. How, you ask? Here are four examples: the manufacturer who depends on the railways to ensure just-in-time delivery of components to the factory; retailers and their customers who rely on the financial services sector to process millions of payments, transactions, every day; the small business that depends on Canada Post to deliver its goods to customers in a cost-effective manner and the customers who are depending upon the timely receipt of these goods; and the millions of businesses, including home offices, that depend on the services of telecommunications companies for their telephone, fax, and e-mail communications.

In the event of a federal labour strike the average Canadian small or medium-sized business does not have the ability to quickly adapt and find new suppliers, distribution networks, or communications service providers. The burden of Bill C-257 on these enterprises and the families and employees who run them is simply staggering.

The Coalition of B.C. Businesses supports the basic tenet that this committee has heard in previous testimony that laws should only be changed to address real and pressing problems. The onus is on the advocates of Bill C-257 to demonstrate that Canada has a problem to resolve with the use of replacement workers. They have failed to do so.

In the 20 years prior to the adoption of the Sims task force recommendations and the 1999 amendments to the code, the federal government had to enact emergency back-to-work legislation 17 times. Since then, there's not been a single instance when the federal government has had to impose a settlement through emergency legislation.

The Coalition of B.C. Businesses respectfully urges this committee to recommend to the House that this legislation be rejected, as Parliament has had the wisdom to do nine times previously.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.

[Jason Koshman, General Counsel, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Jason Koshman. I'm general counsel with the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association.

We wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before it on Bill C-257.

The BCMEA is a federally regulated not-for-profit employer association representing 70 member companies on Canada's west coast. All our member companies are involved in port operations and in shipping. The BCMEA is the labour relations and collective bargaining agent of west coast waterfront employers. Our partner and counterpart is the ILWU Canadian area. The union represents our valuable employees from as far north as Prince Rupert, British Columbia, to as far south as Delta, B.C., and ports in between, including those on Vancouver Island.

In appearing before the committee today, the BCMEA wishes to draw two important points to the committee's attention. The first is the Sims task force. In 1995 the federal Minister of Labour appointed a task force to conduct a comprehensive review of part I of the Canada Labour Code. Wide public consultation with federal employers, trade unions, academics and other interested parties took place over several months across every major centre in Canada. The task force took almost two years to complete its work and produced a report with recommendations on amendments to the Canada Labour Code. That report was entitled “Seeking a Balance”.

A very specific section of that task force's mandate was to examine the issue of the need for and possible scope of restrictions on the use of replacement workers. In short, the issue that is now the subject matter of Bill C-257 was thoroughly analyzed and reviewed by the task force. In chapter 9 of its report it described the issue as follows, and I am going to cite from the report itself:

No issue divides the submissions we received more than the issue of replacement workers. Labour was virtually unanimous in favouring a legislated prohibition on the use of replacement workers (a so-called "anti-scab" law). Management was equally unanimous in its opposition to such a proposal.

The task force carefully and thoroughly analyzed arguments for and against such a measure in the federal sector. Ultimately they concluded as follows, and I'll quote again:

Replacement workers can be necessary to sustain the economic viability of an enterprise in the face of a harsh economic climate and unacceptable union demands. It is important in a system of free collective bargaining that employers maintain that option, unrestrained by any blanket prohibition. If this option is removed, employers will begin to structure themselves to reduce their reliance on their permanent workforces for fear of vulnerability, to the detriment of both workers and employers alike.

and then,

Once the strike or lockout commences, we believe that it should be fought out on the bargaining issues, not on the question of representation. Replacement workers should only be prohibited where they are used for an illegitimate end. Our recommendation can achieve this while preserving the basic balance of collective bargaining.

The Sims recommendation on this very issue saw the enactment of subsection 94(2.1) under the current Canada Labour Code. It is our view and that of our members that Bill C-257 clearly undermines the significant consultative work of the task force and the resulting enactment of subsection 94(2.1).

Bill C-257 substantially amends the code and is far more draconian than existing B.C. replacement worker legislation. It is our view that balance was achieved with the enactment of subsection 94(2.1), and Bill C-257 threatens this balance. We believe that Bill C-257 pushes the pendulum too far. Moreover, it amends the current code just a few short years following the enactment of subsection 94(2.1), and it should be noted that since the subsection's enactment, Parliament has not on a single occasion had to enact legislation forcing a federal labour dispute to an end.

The second point the BCMEA wishes to draw to the committee's attention is the nature of Canada's federally regulated industries. Federal industries regulated by the code are infrastructure industries necessary for the economy of Canada and the well-being of all Canadians. The ability of federally regulated employers to operate and to sustain their economic viability is important to all Canadian businesses, not simply those under federal jurisdiction. A halt to the provision of port services, telecommunications, air travel, banking, or other federally regulated industries has profound effects on all of Canada. Indeed, Parliament has been forced to intervene in work stoppages in west coast ports on several occasions through back-to-work legislation, due to the negative effects on Canada's economy when trade stops moving through the west coast ports. Examples are the West Coast Ports Operations Act of 1972; the West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1975; the grain handling operations acts of 1991; West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994; and the West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995--and this list does not include legislation relating to national railways, which occurred in 1995.

We feel it important to note that a work stoppage at a unionized pulp mill, mine, or factory in the province of Quebec or the province of British Columbia, although detrimental, does not carry national ramifications to Canada's economy. A halt to port operations or national rail operations clearly does. Restrictions on the use of replacement workers for federally regulated industries must be seen in the context of this reality, one that the Sims task force clearly recognized when recommending enactment of what is now section 94(2.1).

In conclusion, the task force chaired by Andrew Sims thoroughly reviewed the issue of restrictions on the use of replacement workers in Canada's federal sector. Its recommendations were reasoned and thorough, following extensive and wide-reaching consultation and resulting in the enactment of section 94(2.1). Balance was achieved and has been maintained without Parliament having to end federal disputes since its enactment.

Bill C-257 is not provincial legislation affecting one local region. Canada's national industries regulated by the code are the lifeblood of the economy and essential to all Canadians.

Thank you.

[Doug Alley, Vice-President, Human Resources, Business Council of British Columbia]

Thank you.

Because B.C. passed replacement worker legislation a few years ago, I think it's important that you understand fully how this occurred.

When the NDP provincial government was elected in 1992, it did a full review of what was then the Industrial Relations Act through a special subcommittee consisting of one employer representative, one representative from the trade union movement, and a neutral chair. They agreed on 95% of the new labour code. There were four issues they did not agree on, one of them being replacement worker legislation.

The adviser for the employers recommended that nothing be done on replacement workers. The labour adviser recommended a limited ban on replacement workers. The neutral chair was in between, talking about a mechanism to settle a dispute where replacement workers were used.

What came about, however, was something far beyond what the committee even remotely recommended. The government at that time arbitrarily decided to incorporate restrictions on the use of replacement workers into the revised code. The employer community at the time did not support this and felt it tipped the balance of the labour code in favour of trade unions. We have never changed our position.

We do an annual member survey on labour and employment legislation, and the removal of the prohibition on the use of replacement workers tops the list every year. We will continue to press our provincial government to remove this provision from the B.C. code.

I want to talk briefly about what we have in B.C., versus what's proposed in Bill C-257. While employers in B.C. find the replacement worker legislation repugnant, what we find under Bill C-257 is even more draconian. Employees under the B.C. code can cross a picket line; they cannot do so under this. Employers can attempt to manage their businesses under the B.C. legislation; under Bill C-257, they cannot.

The only thing an employer can do is manage his business to avoid the destruction of his or her property, or for conservation matters. In other words, a struck employer would not be allowed to continue to produce goods or provide services, no matter what the consequences.

This will have a great effect not only on employers but on the public at large. We believe that the measures contained in Bill C-257 are extremely harsh and far exceed anything found in any jurisdiction in North America.

I don't have to tell you that Canada doesn't operate in a vacuum. Investors seek stability and familiarity. Generally investors prefer the same rules across jurisdictions. They are reluctant to invest dollars where jurisdictions differ.

In our submission to the Sims task force in 1995, we stated:

A legislated prohibition on the use of replacement workers would greatly increase regulatory disparities between Canada and the United States, and thus erode Canada's ability to compete and to attract new business investments.

We still believe that to this day.

We believe that there needs to be a balance in the labour code. We believe that Sims found this balance when he made his recommendations in the 1990s, and the Liberal government adopted them in 1999.

We believe that suddenly including a replacement worker provision in the Canada Labour Code will have negative effects on investment, and not only on employers but on their workers and communities. We do not want to see businesses structure themselves so that they could possibly leave our jurisdiction—that is in no one's best interest.

I would like to point out that HRSDC did a study. Proponents of the bill have argued that replacement worker legislation will shorten the duration of strikes. The HRSDC study, which was produced last year in October, proves the opposite.

As my colleague Mr. Lampert said, we believe that good labour and management relations involve valuable input from both sides. By this, in our view, the bill should not pass.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I do. I'm just going to read the motion. The chair made a decision to schedule six other meetings to hear about 35 witnesses. We've already heard from 34 individuals. I have a concern that we put forward a plan to make it clear that we are managing the time, that we provide adequate time for witnesses but we not allow this to be delayed and to be stalled. We also have to make sure there is time for technical or expert witnesses to appear, as well as the clause-by-clause.

Mr. Chair, I move that in relation to Bill C-257 this committee direct the clerk to ensure that the hours of the currently scheduled committee meetings are extended as necessary so that a technical briefing be held no later than February 1 and that all currently scheduled witnesses be heard by no later than February 7 and that a clause-by-clause reading of this bill be completed on February 8.

The intent of the motion is simply to manage our time. It provides for all currently scheduled witnesses to be heard. I think the implication of this is that for possibly two meetings we might need to extend the hours so we can hear a few more witnesses during that time slot.

I've noticed that at some of the meetings anywhere from three to five witnesses have been scheduled at a time. In many other committees a greater number of witnesses would be heard. We know the finance committee has scheduled about 16 witnesses in a two-hour period, so I feel what we're proposing is very reasonable to ensure that we can get to the technical briefing we need prior to finishing with the witnesses, just in case issues arise out of that. Then clause-by-clause would be completed by February 8, and if we need to go later into the evening on that day that would not be a problem.

So I'd like to move that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), the committee will now continue to hear witnesses on its study of the bill.

Before we get started, we have a somewhat different makeup to our committee from what we had before we broke at Christmastime. I welcome all the new Liberals who have new critics roles. Thank you for being here.

Ms. Davies, on a point of order.

Canada Labour Code

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain again to this House that the federal government has responsibility for sectors that are vital to the smooth running of the country: rail, marine and air transportation and telecommunications.

We also have other services, and hon. members should know that Bill C-257 would no longer allow the use of replacement workers. Any subgroup within any one of these sectors could completely paralyze the country's economy.

[Yvon Moreau, President, Abitibi-Temiscamingue Communications, Centrale des syndicats nationaux]

Absolutely. Over 22 months, almost 800 days, 800 sunrises and sunsets for 60 people, their spouses and their children. Obviously, I am not a politician. In every day life, I am a journalist in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a region which, as you know, is still going through a major economic crisis.

I was listening to Mr. Kelly-Gagnon from the Conseil du patronat and I listen to the people from the Bloc Québebois and the Liberal Party. What I have been hearing since I got here this morning makes me think of a labour management dispute. Although I am the president of the union where I work, I do not want to refer to Bill C-257 as a bill that could be the object of a future labour management dispute. I want to refer to Bill C-257 as a way of harmonizing labour management relations, because for 800 days, my colleagues and I were on strike, and for 800 days, my managers had economic difficulties because of that labour dispute. Today, I have to tell you that federal replacement worker legislation would shorten labour disputes in Canada and at federally regulated companies. Let replacement workers replace people who want to settle a labour management dispute... The word “replacement” says it all. I lived through this situation for 800 days. Replacement workers are not skilled workers who have learned a trade day after day. Whether it is pilots, letter carriers, journalists or cameramen, replacement workers are people who show up without preparation to do a job that is usually done by people who know what they are doing.

So when you say replacement worker legislation will be harmful to the economy, let it be known that the disasters you anticipate, should conservatives, liberals, bloc and NDP vote in favour of this bill, won't come to pass, but the legislation will avoid the kind of tragedy we experienced in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Radio Nord Communications—and my managers are not here, but they admit this at our weekly labour relations meetings—lost, over the course of this dispute, $0.5 million. Had there been no replacement workers, we would have negotiated faster, settled faster and Radio Nord Communications would not have lost $0.5 million. And above all, two years after the dispute, my co-workers would not be asked to reduce their payroll by the equivalent of 300 hours per week to recover that $0.5 million.

So, the disaster the people from the Conseil du patronat and others anticipate, I have been through it, my 60 co-workers have been through it. So make sure it ends, because preventing management and labour from negotiating is silencing democracy. In my view, Canada, like all provinces of Canada, is a place where democracy rules. Let's make sure it continues to rule.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Someone said earlier, it was Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, that the leader of the Liberal Party had come out against Bill C-257.

Since we have media in the room, I want to make sure we're on the record. Mr. Dion wasn't there for the vote. He never said he would be against. As a matter of fact, he was in favour of Bill C-257 before he was leader. Now as leader he will have to take a stand, but he never ever said no to Bill C-257.

[Jim Facette, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Airports Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's an honour for us to be here today to discuss this very important bill.

With me here today is one of those front-end experts that was discussed at your prior meeting. He is from the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, the vice-president of human resources, Mr. Vito Lotito. We think it's so important that we've brought in some front-line people.

Canada's airports believe that you should be aware of the potential devastating impact this legislation could have on the airport community across Canada. If enacted, this bill could result in a shutdown of one or more of Canada's airports in the event of a strike.

The Canadian Airports Council is the national association of Canada's airports. Our 45 members include more than 150 airports, handling virtually all of the nation's air cargo and international passenger traffic, and 95% of domestic passenger traffic.

Our position today is supported by the Air Transport Association of Canada, which represents Canada's air carrier sector, an organization that was not granted a hearing by this committee. We hope it will be in the future.

Canada's airports are an essential component of the Canadian infrastructure for the communities they serve, and indeed for the nation. Canada's airports play a vital economic and social role. They also play an important part in the continued health and security of our nation: the military, medevac, search and rescue, and forest fire bombers all rely on airports as bases of operation. For northern and remote communities, airports are particularly important. For some communities, air service is the only link to the outside world.

To shut down an airport is to weaken our national transportation system. The Minister of Transport, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, is keenly aware of the critical role played by our airports. In October of this year, he told the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that we must ensure that federal policies and legislation continue to strengthen our national transportation system. Getting them right matters for competitiveness.

This bill, we submit, does not get it right. This bill jeopardizes Canada's competitiveness. Such is our concern about the implications of this bill that we wrote the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in November to advise the minister that if Bill C-257 becomes law, Canada's airports, in the event of a strike by certain occupational groups, likely would not be able to live up to regulated responsibilities under the terms of the Canadian aviation regulations. We must live up to them. We do not have a choice. But it is our opinion, and the opinion of our legal counsel, that airports in Canada will not be able to do so if Bill C-257 is enacted.

Let me give you just a few examples to illustrate the severity of our concerns. If aircraft fuellers strike, then aircraft will not fly. If aircraft de-icers strike, then aircraft will not fly in the winter months. If baggage and cargo handlers strike, then people and products won't be loaded and unloaded. With no passengers, no baggage, and no cargo, aircraft will not fly. If ground handling personnel strike, aircraft cannot be safely moved on the tarmac. Again, aircraft will not fly. If airport security personnel strike, facility security may be compromised and airport operations will be curtailed or will cease. If pre-board security screeners strike, then nobody flies.

Some may say that existing essential service protection, called maintenance of activities in subsection 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, will ensure that these critical services continue to be provided during a strike or lockout. We do not agree. Regrettably, 87.4 has proven to be inadequate. Canada's aviation sector has not been well served by the current maintenance of activities provisions.

For example, aviation sector employers and unions alike have been anxiously awaiting, for almost six years, a final decision from the Canada Industrial Relations Board concerning air traffic control and related services provided by Nav Canada. If to this inadequate essential service protection you add a ban on the use of replacement workers, you will have a recipe for airport chaos in the event of a strike.

Given the essential role Canada's airports play in the functioning of our country, we anticipate that emergency back-to-work legislation will once again be the order of the day. Prior to the 1999 amendments to the Canada Labour Code, the federal government had to enact emergency back-to-work legislation on 17 occasions. Since the 1999 amendments, there hasn't been a single incident during which the federal government has had to legislate an end to a strike or lockout. This is the best evidence of a balanced labour code serving the interests of all parties: labour, management, government, and, most importantly, the people of Canada. We urge you not to upset this delicate balance.

You have been bombarded with conflicting statistics for and against the ban on replacement workers. We wish to add some views to this debate.

First, let me say that we respect the expertise and neutrality of the federal public servants who prepared the report entitled Key Observations Regarding the Effect of Replacement Workers Legislation on Workers this year. That document makes a number of very important statements, which we urge you to consider carefully as you consider this proposal to ban the use of replacement workers. There is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages, it says. There is no evidence that replacement worker legislation will result in shorter duration of work stoppages. It also states that there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work days lost.

Apparently the policy experts at the federal Department of Labour do not agree with organized labour's assertions that replacement workers lengthen or increase the number of strikes. If you have not already done so, we urge you to read the federal Department of Labour's report.

We too have some telling statistics to share with the committee and parliamentarians. We represent 150 airports, each with at least one collective agreement that is renegotiated about every three years. This means that in the last ten years there have been at least 450 collective agreements renegotiated by airports and their unions across Canada. Put another way, that is at least 450 instances where a strike or lockout could have occurred. I am happy to report that there have been fewer than five airport labour disruptions in that time. The system is balanced. We urge you not to disrupt this delicate balance by dramatically and unfairly increasing the balance of power.

Canada does not need Bill C-257. There has been a restriction on the use of replacement workers for almost seven years, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board has yet to issue a single decision in circumstances where an employer has actually used replacement workers. Laws should only be changed to fix problems. There is simply no problem to fix.

In conclusion, Canada's airports are very concerned about Bill C-257 because it could result in the shutdown of one or more of Canada's airports in the event of a strike. Because of the vital role airports play in our communities and the nation, we hope this committee will not let that happen. This bill is not needed.

As we articulated earlier, our position is supported by Canada's air carrier sector. This bill would damage Canada's airports, the communities we serve, and the economy as a whole. Federal law must strengthen, not weaken, Canada's transportation and economic infrastructure.

Monsieur le président, merci beaucoup.