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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

Our witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations. There will be two rounds of questioning, one round of seven minutes and a second one of five minutes. I will do my best to keep my eye on the clock, although when you have MPs asking questions, anything can happen. We try to keep everyone within the timeframe.

I also want to remind everybody that all questions should be put through me, the chair. We'll start with Mr. Roy.

[Michael McDermott, Former Senior Deputy Minister, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources Development , As an Individual]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, members of the committee. Thanks for allowing me to appear before you this morning.

I'm here as an individual, but in a previous life I had much to do with labour administration and the development of labour relations policy and legislation. I should make it clear at the outset that I do not intend to take a position on the inclusion of replacement worker provisions in the code, as proposed in Bill C-257.

[Deborah Bourque, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers]

Thank you.

I'm Deborah Bourque. I'm the national president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. On behalf of our 54,000 members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-257. For your information, the majority of our members work at Canada Post. We represent some private sector bargaining units, some under the federal legislation and some under provincial legislation, but the vast majority of our members work for Canada Post and they are federally regulated.

CUPW members have seen our major employer, Canada Post, use scabs during strikes in 1987 and 1991. So we know first-hand how the use of scabs can cause suffering, can divide communities, can make strikes longer, and can cause violence on picket lines. I know this committee has already heard example after example, from the Canadian Labour Congress and others, of similar experiences.

I want to say that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers wholeheartedly supports the submission made by the Canadian Labour Congress yesterday.

On the other hand, there are many clear examples of the benefits of anti-scab legislation, and I'm sure you've heard some of those as well. I will underscore some of those examples. Provincially, Quebec outlawed the use of scabs in 1977, and the average number of days of work lost to labour disputes dropped. British Columbia ended the use of scabs in 1993 and experienced a 50% drop in the amount of work time lost to strikes and lockouts the following year.

I think it is ironic that the major strikes in Quebec and British Columbia that most rankled workplaces were TELUS and Vidéotron, and both fell under the Canada Labour Code rather than the provincial code.

Internationally, we have examples of anti-scab legislation in Germany, France, and Italy, as well as in northern Europe. Research done by Labour Canada, Statistics Canada, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board shows that anti-scab regulation, where it exists in Canada, has not disrupted the workplace balance, led to increased work stoppages, or brought unrealistic pay demands from union negotiators.

I note that our own employer, Canada Post, was a signatory to the full-page spread in The Hill Times this Monday lobbying you to dismantle this bill. I shouldn't be surprised, given Canada Post's choice of confrontation over negotiation and their use of scabs during our 1987 and 1991 strikes. I am, however, shocked that Canada Post didn't learn from those bitter experiences, which included violence. Certainly, the mail was not delivered and processed during that time. It was simply a confrontation. It was simply an attempt to break the union and to undermine our collective bargaining. It resulted in mass firings of folks who were reinstated later at arbitration, and it also had a serious impact on the future of labour relations in the post office, not to mention the exploitation of unemployed and largely immigrant workers who were forced to work as scabs.

The executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Garth Whyte, says that this bill will make Canada less competitive and that it threatens the survival of small businesses that rely on federally regulated services like Canada Post.

I want to say that the CFIB has a history of exaggerating the impact of postal strikes on their members.

In 1981 the CFIB stated publicly that our strike caused 3,000 bankruptcies. Statistics provided by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy proved that statement to be completely false, and in fact, revealed that the strike had no significant impact on business bankruptcies. In 2002, Mr. Whyte told Direct Marketing News that they had a 15,000-member survey in which respondents claimed, with no back-up, that the postal strike directly or indirectly impacted their business, and concluded that the 1997 strike was costing small business $300 million a day. I note that in recent op-eds and open letters he's saying it cost them $200 million a day. In July 2003, even about a threatened strike that didn't happen, Mr. Whyte said, “This postal strike has the potential of being SARS and BSE combined to our membership.” This is an absolutely outrageous prediction.

This committee should seriously examine the record of the CFIB in terms of its statements concerning postal strikes.

I want to point out, as well, that Canada Post is not an essential service. I would argue that it's an incredibly important service to the population and communities and business all across Canada and Quebec, but it's not an essential service.

I just want to speak briefly about the notion of essential services. Unions negotiate essential services with their employers, because they understand the importance of the work they do. This legislation should not impact on that. There's a large difference between folks providing essential services and scabs. Members that provide essential services are not even close to scabs—so that can be rectified very easily. We support essential services.

CUPW also understands that postal strikes have an impact on postal users, and we've tried to minimize that impact on the most vulnerable groups, such as seniors and low-income people. Our members actually deliver cheques during our postal strikes. The union meets for months with Canada Post before potential strikes to ensure those cheques are processed and delivered by our members in spite of any labour dispute we have with our employer—and we've been doing that since 1981.

In closing, I'd like to say that CUPW members support this bill because we've had direct experience with replacement workers and because we know that the use of scabs seriously undermines free collective bargaining and any notion of balance of power within labour relations.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the members of Parliament who have supported this legislation and fought for it for years, and the many activists, as well, who have worked so hard lobbying, gathering signatures, and mobilizing support for this legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this brief statement. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257. The meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes.

Each group of witnesses we have before us will have seven minutes to make their presentations. There will be two rounds of questioning, one of seven minutes and a second round of five minutes. I will do my best to keep my eye on the clock.

I would like to remind everybody the questions should come through me, the chair, as I realize that all groups feel fairly passionate about this issue in one way or the other.

Deborah, perhaps you could start. We'll give you seven minutes. Thank you very much for being here today.

[Glenn O'Farrell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Broadcasters]

Mr.Chairman Allison and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to appear before you this morning.

My name is Glenn O'Farrell. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. With me this morning is my colleague Elizabeth Roscoe, who is the Senior Vice-President for Policy and Public Affairs.

We would like to thank you in particular because this debate, which we are having with our colleagues who are also before you this morning, is an important one. Indeed, we acknowledged the wisdom of having this type of panel so that you can hear the points of view of all parties, although they are not necessarily all the same. But the purpose of bringing everyone together is that any piece of legislation should be well-thought-out, and any draft amendment should be well considered. I would like to insist on this, as did Mr. Coderre a little earlier.

What we will say to you this morning is from that angle and in that context.

The CAB represents the vast majority of Canada's private broadcasters; we're talking about private radio, private television, pay, and specialty networks. While we may not look it, we have been around for 80 years. We are celebrating our 80th anniversary. The CAB was founded in 1926 around the concept that broadcasters needed a common voice on issues where it was in their interests to bring together a voice of cohesion, and that's what we're going to try to do here this morning.

We are deeply concerned with the potential impact of this proposed legislation, which we think could destabilize the balance in labour relations in the broadcasting sector, and for that matter in all federally regulated industries.

Moreover, we come to you this morning to respectfully submit the view that the equation to be balanced here does not consist only of the private interests of employers and employees. Rather, the balance we suggest you must consider here consists not of two but of three interrelated components: the legitimate interests of employees; the legitimate interests of employers; and also the legitimate interest of the public, and therefore the public interest.

The reason that broadcasters take this particular view, and to a certain degree feel entitled to respectfully submit this three-part equation, is because it falls perfectly consistent with the legislative framework under which we operate and which governs broadcasters across the country, by way of the licensing scheme that exists under the CRTC.

In this view, public service to communities is a central and legislatively mandated reality for every radio and television station in the country. As the honourable members of this committee know, the CRTC licence regulations and conditions for individual licensees require Canadian radio and television stations—and I'm just going to summarize—to perform public service functions consistent with the Broadcasting Act, to satisfy broadcasting public policy obligations, and to be accountable to regulatory review, all in the ordinary course of business. Hence, from a broadcaster's perspective, the equation to balance in conducting its operations always includes a public interest component.

As federally regulated companies, we are concerned that if Bill C-257 were to be adopted and a work stoppage were to occur at a CAB member company, the provisions of Bill C-257 would negatively impact its ability to provide its service to audiences—listeners and viewers—who depend on and tune into Canadian broadcasters every day.

We believe that the Canada Labour Code, as it is currently worded, forms a suitable compromise that gives employers the flexibility to fulfill their operating responsibilities, while preventing them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives. This compromise has achieved balance in the interests of all parties.

Broadcasters respectfully submit, as others who have appeared before this committee, that this proposed legislation would have a destabilizing effect on broadcasting company operations across the country. This would have a direct impact on broadcasters' abilities to continue providing regulated programming services during a strike or a work stoppage.

Many broadcasting companies operate with a majority of their staff in union positions. In such cases, only a small number of non-union staff are considered management or administrative. While the situation certainly varies among broadcasting companies, non-union employees, who are not considered part of the management level, carry out responsibilities for sales, advertising, administration, clerical, and maintenance functions. These non-union, non-management employees are not involved in the operational areas of the broadcasting organization.

In the interest of time, let me just fast forward to a few examples of where, had Bill C-257 been in effect, significant concerns, the ones that we address here today, may have given rise to a public interest liability or casualty.

We all remember the ice storm, where radio stations operated and television operations were able to continue in certain instances on little, if no, power, and in some instances on none at all. In those events, the public, but also the emergency service providers, relied on the broadcasters to maintain communication and contact with the public to provide them with essential information.

We can think, of course, of the very unfortunate and tragic situation not too long ago in Montreal, at Dawson College, where the unfortunate events of that day were not aided and abetted by the fact that broadcasters were on the air, but certainly the dissemination of information to interested parties--coming from emergency services, amongst others--and to interested audiences was provided through the access they had to information. If Bill C-257, as it currently stands, had been introduced, unfortunately, in our opinion, it would have compromised that, if not to say made that impossible.

Hence, we wish to conclude our remarks by this suggestion.

As we said at the very beginning, any piece of legislation should be well-thought-out and any draft amendment should be well considered.

We understand and respect points of view which are opposite to ours on this issue. However, we remain convinced that improving a situation which is perhaps not ideal should not be achieved by passing a bill quickly and at the last minute, because, in our opinion, we are not dealing with a crisis or a national emergency. The services which depend on these undertakings, such as broadcasting, are part of our national, economic and social makeup, which is so important to all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[David Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Dave Coles. I am the president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. With me is my confrere, Gaetan Ménard, who is the secretary-treasurer of CEP.

I'd like to take a second to thank the panel for giving us the time to appear before you. It's a very serious matter. I would also like to apologize to the interpreter, because we have modified our presentation somewhat from the one we e-mailed.

For those of you who do not know, I'd like to spend just a few minutes telling you a bit about our union. We have 150,000 members from coast to coast to coast. While the majority of our members work in industries that fall under various provincial jurisdictions, some 45,000 of our members do work under the federal code: broadcasting, telecommunications, and trucking--those that fall under the federal code. Some gas and pipelines that cross interprovincial boundaries are also federally regulated. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, we have a very keen interest in the important work you are doing.

I am sure it will not surprise you to know that our union supports the enactment of Bill C-257 in its present form. We think it presents a balance of all the varying and various interests involved in labour relations and collective bargaining. I want to talk a bit about the balance and my own personal experience.

I am from the west. I come from British Columbia, and I spent a good deal of my working life in Alberta at a time when neither jurisdiction had legislation limiting the use of replacement workers. In my experience, the workers who paid the greatest price in that era were those who had the least power and control in their lives. There are a number of examples, but I'll keep it short because of the time delays.

At the Gainers food processing plant in Alberta and at Purdy's Chocolates in B.C., which we represented, it was largely women, new Canadians, and single parents on the picket line. Ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you first-hand that the Gainers strike lasted months longer than it should have and had excessive violence, while the Purdy's dispute was shorter, with no violence, because Alberta allowed the use of replacement workers while B.C. did not. With Bill C-257, those vulnerable workers in Alberta would not have fallen victim to the imbalance injected into the bargaining process by the importation of strikebreakers. The economic price paid by both sides during those disputes would have been equal, and those employers would have had a much greater incentive to settle.

In 1993, B.C. enacted legislation similar to Bill C-257, and since then, not only has the number of disputes declined by 50%, but so has the number of days lost to strikes and lockouts. Compare that, ladies and gentlemen, to some of the most recent disputes in the federal jurisdiction. Aliant telephone company, which we represent in Atlantic Canada, used replacement workers to extend our strike to more than five months. Telus, which paid people huge bonuses to cross the picket line last year, kept their workers on a lockout for more than four months. That is exactly what I mean when I say that Bill C-257 will inject balance into the bargaining.

At this time, I would like to turn the microphone over to my confrere, Gaetan Ménard, to give you his presentation of what is happening in Quebec.

[Cliff Mackay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, let me express, on behalf of my members, our appreciation for this motion that you just dealt with. It has been a matter of quite some concern with our members that more time was needed, but let me now turn to my remarks.

The Railway Association of Canada represents virtually all railways operating in Canada, most of which are federally regulated, including the large class 1 CN and CPR railways, short-line and regional railways, intercity passenger and commuter rail services, and tourist railways. As its CEO, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-257. My remarks will focus on the overall implications of the proposed legislation for the rail industry, and more generally, for the Canadian economy. I am not a labour expert, so I will leave those considerations to others.

In a nutshell, the RAC is strongly opposed to the adoption of this legislation.

Since Confederation, Canadian legislators have identified some economic sectors as being so strategic to the future of the country that they had to be federally regulated. Canada's railways were a part of this group from the very beginning. The railway industry was not only an integral part of the creation of the country, but it was also recognized as a critical infrastructure that would bind the country together and make a major contribution to growth and our well-being. This link between the railways and Canada's prosperity is even more important today. The rail sector, which physically links most of the regions of the country, moves goods and people throughout the country, but it also connects us to our major ports and to our major trading partner south of the border.

Canada's railways move almost 65% of all of the goods shipped by surface in Canada. They are by far the largest transportation service provider for our exports and imports. As you all know, Canada is a trading nation. Our prosperity depends on our ability to compete internationally and to thrive in an increasingly global market.

The legislation you have before you, we believe, would have a major negative impact on Canada's competitiveness through worsening the ability of our railways to provide stable, safe, secure, and highly competitive transportation services.

Our major concerns are as follows. In the competitive area, Canada is vigorously competing for a greater share of world trade. This is critical to our future prosperity. The railway industry is a major part of that competition. One example I would point out to you is our efforts through the Pacific gateway program. We are competing with the U.S. and Mexico for a greater share of Asia-Pacific trade. Labour stability is a critical part of that equation. In fact, this matter is raised on many occasions by Asian shippers as a concern in evaluating the Canadian option. This legislation will clearly shift the labour-management balance and increase uncertainty and the probability of labour disruptions, in our view. This will hurt our ability to compete in this growing market. I could list other examples such as the critical importance of stable rail services to small centres in central Canada that rely on railways to ship such products as forest products to Europe and the U.S. The consequences of destabilizing these efforts are profound and they need careful study.

One point with regard to the difference.... I made a number of mentions about other jurisdictions regulating provincially regulated industries in this way. I would make the following point. Federally regulated industries are enablers to the Canadian economy and they need to be looked at in that context. A disruption in a major part of those industries has profound and very far-reaching and immediate effects on the Canadian economy.

Let me now speak to local or regional impacts. It's not widely known, but Canada's railway industry is made up of a large number, over 40, of short-line and regional railways that serve local markets and connect these communities to the broader national and international network.

Again, disruptions in rail service could have a profound local effect. For example, we move almost all of the dangerous goods in the country because we are by far the safest surface mode of transportation. It doesn't take much to think of the consequences of a disruption of chlorine supplies, for example, for local water supplies or a disruption of the movement of manufactured autos out of the many plants in southern Ontario to the U.S. market.

When we consulted our members on this, there were a number of concerns, but one is particularly noteworthy. Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc. is a small, native-owned short-line railway that operates, in Labrador and northern Quebec, both a passenger and freight rail service to the remote community of Schefferville. Obviously, a disruption in their service would isolate this community from surface transportation, but also this railway provides transportation services to well over 200 native trappers and hunters who use the railway to get to and from their traplines and hunting grounds for their livelihood.

Bill C-257 will create the situation where, if there is a labour conflict, it will go beyond freight transportation. In our view, it will impact commuter trains in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, and it could easily have a domino effect on a number of other employees.

The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chair, is that clearly this legislation raises the risk of many unintended consequences that deserve more study.

With regard to Canada's reputation, Canada is struggling with a major productivity problem at the moment. Many experts have commented on this. Our question is whether we can afford to increase the probability of further disruptions in our exports, which amount to 40% of our GNP. I would kindly take the point of view that we cannot.

In fact, in the last major rail labour conflict that took place in this country that resulted in a strike or lockout, legislators at the time recognized the strategic importance of rail. An act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services passed the following requirements for arbitrators, that they be

guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system in both the short and the long term, taking into account the importance of good labour-management relations.

In our view, that clearly indicates that legislators saw the strategic need for careful consideration. As well, some studies that have been made available to the committee, dated October 2006, clearly indicate that the effectiveness of this proposed legislation is in question.

Let me just finish, Mr. Chair, by pointing out that we believe the committee would benefit from the appearance of a number of experts. Again, I'm not an expert, but I have been advised that there are a number of issues in this legislation that really do require expert advice. We would strongly recommend that the committee avail themselves of that advice. I can tell you that both CN and CPR have indicated to me that they would be more than willing to provide technical expert advice on some of the labour relations issues here from their perspective.

Let me just close, Mr. Chair, by saying that the Canadian rail industry believes in sound, stable, and respectful labour management relations. We believe a stable and productive labour environment is critical to the interests of all Canadians, and we're committed to that goal. In our view, this legislation will not further that objective but will destabilize the labour management environment and lead to further disruptions.

Thank you.

[Marc Toupin, Procedural Clerk]

Mr. Chair, what I can say is that normally, whenever there is amending legislation before a committee, the committee is bound by the terms of reference of that bill. So it would be improper for a committee to go back to sections of the parent act that are not being amended by Bill C-257.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

The meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations, and there will be two rounds of questioning, one of seven minutes and a second one of five minutes.

I can assure you that I will be better with the time today. Things got away from us a little bit yesterday. I'm going to have to try to keep you to seven minutes. I apologize for that. I will keep an eye on the clock so that we can get through this agenda. I also want to remind everyone that all questions should be put through the chair.

Mr. Lake.

Statements by Members

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, during statements by members, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert said that the 911 service is not linked in any way to federal government jurisdiction.

We know that currently in Parliament, in the standing committee in particular, we are considering Bill C-257, commonly referred to as the anti-scab bill.

This bill is extremely important, since it would destroy the balance with respect to Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which allows the use of replacement workers. If that is done, it should not be done with the intention of undermining union representation.

Yesterday, in the standing committee, I also reminded the committee members that the federal government is involved in vital jurisdictions in Canada, among others, in transportation: air transport, rail transport, sea transport, and also in matters of banking and telecommunications. As far as telecommunications are concerned, this covers all the services offered throughout the—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we should always listen to people when they say they don't have time to express their views. We can make mistakes in life, but we do have the responsibility of taking what has been done into account. For example, over the past ten years, year in, year out, this bill was tabled and discussed over months, not weeks. In May, it was examined at first reading. We hear a great deal of testimony outside the sessions. We now have a framework to receive you. We thank you for being here today. You tell us that we might have to hear other witnesses. We will debate that issue.

As our colleagues said, we will soon have to make recommendations to the House of Commons. Those recommendations must reflect how things really are. I must point out that the debate started off quite badly when you told us that, if we were on the side of businesses, we would not be voting for Bill C-257. It's like when Mr. Bush told representatives of other countries that if they were not with him they were against him. That is the kind of message we received.

I think that everyone here—except the Minister—came before the committee with the intention of making relevant remarks. We cannot always all agree, and you have expressed your views extremely well, including your comments about Georges. You said that he and his friends as well as others and many businesses are worried. What I would like to know is what they are worried about, and whether Georges' company's is unionized. If it is not, there would be no strike. You say there are other people like Georges in many companies. Small businesses generate $900 million per day in the Canadian economy. For those $900 million to be in jeopardy, those people would all have to be unionized, and all be out on strike.

In small businesses which do have an employer and a union, needs are determined in terms of essential services. On that score, I would agree with you again. At the same time, I'm trying to respond to your concerns. For example, if Georges is delivering food in the Far North and is the only person to do so, then we and the union would consider that an essential service. However, if the client consists of a group of friends having a party and wanting to go hunt caribou, we would conclude this was not an essential service. Perhaps some other company may provide the service. We would have to see. Those things are done in a civilized fashion, we don't just go out and do things any old way, without even thinking about it.

You say that people are worried. To reassure you, I would like to draw your attention to Quebec's experience of 29 years and British Columbia's experience of 14 years. Both provinces, including the small businesses there, are not concerned about the experience. They are not waging a campaign to change the way things are. You say that you have no evidence. But doesn't their experience constitute evidence that labour relations can indeed be harmonized.

[Garth Whyte, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to introduce my colleague, Corinne Pohlmann, who's our director of national affairs. She'll be helping with the questions and answers.

I want to talk about George. George is a CFIB member who owns a small regional airline that services northern communities. He's not nearly as big as Air Canada or WestJet, but his service is critical to the northern communities he services. His small planes bring supplies and offers travel connections among those communities that the big airlines don't serve. During part of the year, his services are the only link between those northern communities and the outside world. George has a union workforce. He knows each employee. He is an important employer in his community and he is federally regulated. George's company has never experienced a strike--yet.

I want to ask this committee to consider this question. How does Bill C-257, which restricts replacement workers, help George and his northern airline? How will this legislation impact on thousands of small and medium-sized businesses in sectors such as trucking, communications, and airlines that, like George, are important to their community and are federally regulated?

We've heard from powerful union leaders that their members need protection from big, federally regulated companies. What protection do smaller employers like George's company have from powerful, big unions? What protection do his employees have who may disagree with the strike action supported by a big union based out of Toronto or Montreal? Big unions claim they need this legislation to protect themselves from big business, but who will stand up and protect small business from big unions?

Actually, this bill is double jeopardy for smaller business employers like George. His business will be hit directly if there's a strike, and it can be hurt indirectly by a strike or a lockout between a major, federally regulated business and a big union. That provides an important service to his business, and his business depends on it. Big businesses have the ability to survive a strike that would shut down ports, trucking, railways, or the postal service, but it is small businesses that risk being put out of business when these services grind to a halt.

The impact of this bill will hurt small employers across the country. Without replacement workers, the farmer who relies on exports will not ship grain. Small retailers who rely on imports will have empty shelves, and products will not reach the customer through distribution networks like Canada Post.

When asked about whether replacement workers should be restricted in federally regulated businesses, 84% of the 10,000 small business respondents said no. I'd like some other people to bring some hard evidence. I've heard anecdotes. That's what our membership is saying.

This bill has made our members angry and afraid. Our members remember when the port of Vancouver was shut down. The grain shipments and exports were tied up for weeks. The cost to B.C. business was over $75 million per day, but the impact was felt across Canada. Our members remember the Canada Post strike in 1999, when a small business, on average, lost $240 per day in higher delivery costs, lost sales, and delayed payments. It doesn't sound like a lot; however, the losses translated to more than $200 million per day within Canada's small and medium-sized business community.

The Liberal government was forced to legislate CUPW employees back to work. Is that the goal of this bill, to force governments to legislate union workers back to work? Even the threat of this happening can have serious long-term impacts on business growth, job creation, and economic development. How does this bill improve Canada's competitiveness?

All four federal parties have recognized the importance of small business to job creation, to their local communities, and to Canada's overall economic success. During the past two elections, all federal parties--the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals, and the Conservatives--endorsed policies that would help small business grow and create jobs. Why? Because they know that small and medium-sized enterprises account for 60% of total employment and 45% of the GDP. They know that small and medium-sized enterprises are important to the communities in their constituencies.

Canadians trust small and medium-sized enterprises to create the jobs. I've distributed some information that shows that. I can give you other items. They don't trust unions or big business to create the jobs. In fact, Canadians' preference is to work in or own a small business, not to work in government or in big business. Times have changed.

All four parties have told us it's good policy and good politics to encourage small and medium-sized business growth and job creation. All of you have told us that. That is why we don't understand Bill C-257. It's bad policy and it's bad politics.

Why is it bad policy? A very recent Human Resources and Social Development Canada study came out--October 24, 2006--and they observed many things. One thing they observed is that there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages. They say there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation results in shorter duration of work stoppages. It also says that several academic studies on the impact of replacement worker legislation have concluded that a legislative ban on replacement workers is associated with more frequent and longer strikes. That's not just their study; it's several academic studies.

Is this the goal of this legislation--more frequent and longer strikes? Even if I'm wrong, shouldn't you take the time to make sure it's right? If this is such important legislation, then why is this committee and a minority government trying to quickly ram this legislation through the House?

This committee spent several months hearing witnesses in locations across the country to discuss job creation. Why is this committee restricting the number of witnesses and spending only two days to discuss legislation that we feel will be devastating to small business and Canada's competitiveness? Why was the B.C. business council turned down? Why can't they present and talk about the B.C. example? Why not take the time to get it right?

As employers and employees, we worked for several years along with government to improve parts I and II of the Canada Labour Code. We spent almost two years working on part III of the Canada Labour Code. The goal was to modernize the code to reflect the new economy.

This bill changes part I of the Canada Labour Code over a few months with very little input from employers, who will be significantly impacted by this bill. This is bad politics.

You have before you a letter that we've distributed, that we sent to every one of you--personalized, to every member of Parliament--on behalf of our 105,000 small business owners, informing MPs of the impacts of this legislation on small business in their communities. This is not just a big union, big business issue. This bill will have a significant impact on our members and on small business in your constituency. This bill will no longer quietly sneak through the House of Commons.

We do not have the financial resources that the CLC, the CAW, CUPW, or CUPE have at their disposal. We can't mount a massive lobbying campaign and ridings on the Hill like the CLC did, with 150 union activists blitzing MPs over a three-day period before you voted on the bill. However, we do have 105,000 small business owners as members, and we do make 4,500 small business visits every week. We will be watching each MP and how you vote, informing our small business owners in your riding how you vote on this bill.

You can't have it both ways by saying you support small business and then supporting this union-sponsored bill. Our members and small business owners across the country will be watching not only how you vote, but also whether or not you give the time for meaningful and serious debate on this legislation.

George and our members will be watching very closely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257. This meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. I appreciate everyone's patience. We've been a little late this morning.

The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations. There will be two rounds of questioning. There will be one round of seven minutes, followed by an additional round of five minutes.

I want to remind everyone to put all their questions through me as the chair. I'm going to start with Mr. Anders.

[Hassan Yussuff]

In regard to the current Canada Labour Code, part I, currently section 87.4 deals with essential service provision. There are two important criteria in order to get a designation as an essential service. One, of course, is public health and safety. It's not an ambiguous definition; it's a very clear definition.

In the context of Bill C-257, we're making the argument that the bill should be compatible with essential service provision. It is there for a reason. It establishes the fact that you need to have it there, and we think they should be compatible.

We don't think there's a conflict, but again, the committee can get some legal interpretation if there's a conflict. We should err on the side of caution, of course, and ensure that section 87.4 is not compromised as a result of this bill.

In addition to that, Bill C-257 added a provision that is not currently in the Canada Labour Code, part I. It is that if there is a dispute, replacement workers would not be able to cross the picket line.

It also provides for management to continue to perform their responsibilities in the context of the workplace, and I think that's an added provision. We think it's critical that the bill comply with section 87.4.

In every instance in which our affiliates have had to go before the board to deal with the elements of essential services or, more importantly, when the employer has raised it as a concern, they have actually worked it out and reached an agreement that has satisfied both parties, and when they couldn't have done so, they've gone before the board. We've always seen the board jurisdiction in dealing with this as adequate and fair. It's their job to determine whether the parties making the representation that it should be declared an essential service actually have a legitimate argument as defined under the current law.

We have always felt the board is balanced and fair, so if the parties can't resolve it, I think legitimately it should be the board that makes that designation at the end of the day. We think it's an essential part of the changes that should be applied to Bill C-257.

[Hassan Yussuff]

These include prolonged and more bitter labour conflicts, more strikes and lockouts, increased picket-line confrontations and violence, less free and meaningful collective bargaining, problems that render resolution of the dispute more difficult.

The CLC and other trade unions have been working for years to bring balance and fairness into federal industrial relations by advocating a ban on replacement workers. We have, unfortunately, witnessed bitter disputes at Vidéotron in Quebec, Telus in B.C. and Alberta, Sécur in Quebec, Giant Mine up in the Northwest Territories, and of course, most recently, which my colleague Patty Ducharme will be speaking of, Ekati.

What is clear about all these disputes is that when workers are put in desperate situations by irresponsible employers, dangerous situations are almost assured. It is the role of government to avoid such scenarios by ensuring an even playing field between labour and management. This is a view most employers in the federal sector can also appreciate.

Ten years ago, a task force chaired by Andrew Sims, which has been referred to here this morning, published a report on reforming part one of the code. They heard from a range of witnesses and made a series of recommendations, but were divided on one major issue: the treatment of replacement workers under federal labour law.

It was also mentioned that Dr. Rodriguez Blouin offered a damning minority report of his own on the issue of replacement workers. Blouin's view on the issue was unmistakable. Here's a quote of what he said:

The use of replacement workers undermines the structural elements that ensure the internal cohesion of the collective bargaining system, by introducing a foreign body into a dispute between two clearly identified parties. It upsets the economic balance of power, compromises the freedom of expression of workers engaging in a strike or lockout, shifts the original neutral ground of the dispute, and leads eventually to a perception of exploitation of the individual.

Experience bears out Dr. Blouin's worst fears. In cases where disputes have occurred, employers need only to give the appearance that they are bargaining in good faith. After they meet this criterion, they are free to use replacement workers. In the cases of Telus, Ekati Mines, Vidéotron, Sécur, and Giant Mine, this is precisely what happened. So when a few renegade employers think otherwise, it is critical that rules exist to protect working families, our economy, and Canada's commitment to labour rights. Rules on replacement workers speak loudly to the priorities held in the federal labour laws.

Ultimately, the debate on Bill C-257 raises a larger question and cuts to the heart of what any labour relations system should be about: balance and fairness for all parties in a workplace relationship.

As Canada gears up for the 21st century, we must use an economic model that fits our values--or will it choose an economic model that enhances business productivity by ignoring core labour rights? Or will we follow the lead of enlightened countries and choose a model that emphasizes dynamic research, cutting-edge skills, and sincere commitment to labour rights?

We urge the federal government and the human resources committee to choose the latter, and of course a better course. Canada's federal rules on replacement workers continue to draw controversy, and will do so until the legitimate concerns of working families are addressed. When Bill C-257passed second reading in the House of Commons, Canada moved one step closer to joining those enlightened nations that value labour rights. It was a remarkable moment when politicians dispensed with partisan differences and joined forces to do the right thing.

In the interest of true balance and fairness and the rights of working families, we urge you to continue this course by amending the federal labour code to reflect the values widely held by Canadians.

In our brief we made two key points that were raised before the committee earlier. During the discussion between the CLC and MPs, all political parties and many MPs asked, how will the use of Bill C-257 comply with essential services in the Canada Labour Code?

The code sets out a clear responsibility for unions and employers on essential services to be maintained during a strike or lockout. Section 87.4 specifically makes reference to that. The point we want to make here is that the CLC maintains very strongly to this committee that Bill C-257 complies with the provisions of the Canada Labour Code in ensuring that essential services are maintained in the face of a strike or lockout. Further, we also go on to talk about the powers of the minister to investigate, where there is a breach in the legislation, who's best to be doing that. We recommend that the Canada Labour Relations Board should be charged with the responsibility of dealing with any breach in regard to the amended legislation.

Thank you.