Human Resources Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Our witness is a very important part of this legislation, and I think he should hear how important it is for us to have all of our witnesses, including—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Let's hear what he has to say, and then we'll see.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I've heard different conversations about how divided this is in terms of the issue. I'll refer to, interestingly enough, a former NDP cabinet minister in Manitoba, Sidney Green, who said:

The election of a minority government has resulted in a curious anomaly. The combined opposition is in a position where it believes that it can pass legislation in direct conflict with the position of the government. Indeed, the combined opposition, simply to flex its muscles, has given second reading to legislation that no party seeking to become the federal government ever included as a plank in its election platform.

Mr. Coderre just spoke to this and flexed his muscles, so to speak, to remind us that they have seven members and we have four combined.

This is obviously a highly political issue. It's very important for us to give assurance to both sides on this issue that we will hear all of the witnesses on both sides. I don't believe we've done that so far, in terms of the working schedule we were looking at.

I think Mr. Regan, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Lavallée referred to six meetings as being a bit of an issue. I'm curious to hear their thoughts. I'm open to an amendment, if they have a different thought. I just want to make sure we're not confining this thing in order to jam this through. I want some assurance from the other side that we're going to give this a fair hearing. I don't believe at this point we have that assurance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I think it's very unfortunate that this is escalating this way and shaping into some sort of battleground, because I don't think it has to be that way. I would remind Mr. Lake that it was a vote in the House--a private member's bill, which means that each member of the House takes responsibility for how they're going to vote--that got us to today. That's why we're here. As to a minority Parliament, or whatever, it was a majority of the members of the House who decided they wanted this bill to be examined in more detail. I think that's what we should do.

Mr. Lake has a motion on the floor, so I move an amendment that his motion be deferred until we've heard from an initial number of witnesses. Then the committee can decide if they require additional meetings.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Can I make a point of order on that motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There's no point of order, but we can get you in the next—

Are you done, Ms. Davies?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Number one, I don't think that's really an amendment. She's actually making a motion that a motion be deferred. That's not an amendment to my motion. I don't accept the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You don't have to accept it. You'll have a chance to vote on it shortly.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to get the wording of that amendment, and I will want to know if there's any discussion on it. It reads:

That the motion be deferred until such a time as we have heard the initial witnesses, so the committee can determine if additional hearings are required.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

That sounds like a new motion, not an amendment. What was struck from the original motion to make this? It's a motion about a motion.

I challenge the clerk to explain to this committee how that's not a new a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Hiebert. Upon further review it was indicated that it is an additional motion. So we're going to need to vote on the original motion, and then we can have discussion on the second motion.

There is a request for a recorded vote. The original motion says:

That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on November 23, that six (6) additional meetings be added to hear witnesses on December 12 and on the first five scheduled Committee meetings following the Christmas adjournment.

If there's no more discussion I'll call the recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: yeas 4; nays 7)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I declare the motion defeated.

Ms. Davies, would you like to let your motion stand for now, or bring it back afterwards?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'll bring it back later. Just leave it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. We'll go back to the witness.

I'm sorry about that, Mr. Nadeau. You have five minutes left on the clock. Thank you for your patience.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will continue with my presentation.

Regarding the changes that need to be made to the current Canada Labour Code, subsection 94(2.1) bans replacement workers, but only if an employer uses replacement workers with a view to undermining a union's representational capacity. This ban lacks teeth because all the employer has to do is continue to acknowledge the union in question and continue to bargain so as not to appear to be undermining the union's representational capacity in order to have the right to use replacement workers.

In other words, if an employer refuses to negotiate while continuing to use strike breakers the Canada Industrial Relations Board may prohibit their use. However, all an employer has to do is negotiate, or appear to negotiate, with the union in order to skirt this ban and continue to use strike breakers.

Clearly, this measyre is inordinately weak and makes it easy to use strike breakers. To remedy this problem, Bill C-257 will replace subsection 94(2.1) in order to specify which individuals may not be called upon during a strike or lock-out in order to prevent strike breakers being hired. This list is on page 2 of the document I gave you today.

Subsection 100(5), proposed in the bill, stipulates that any person violating the provisions regarding the use of strike breakers would face a maximum fine of a $1,000 for each day or portion of a day the offence lasts.

Proposed subsection 94(2.3) allows for employees be used in order to prevent the destruction of the employer's property.

Subsection 94(2.5) would enable the minister, upon request, to designate an investigator to determine whether requirements are being met.

Finally, section 87.6 of the Canada Labour Code is amended to compel employers to accept an employee returning to work following a labour dispute unless there are valid and sufficient grounds, with the burden of proof on the employer, to not permit an employee to do so.

Mr. Chairman, these are the broad brush strokes of Bill C-257. I will be glad to answer my colleagues' questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau, for being here today.

The report entitled Seeking a Balance, prepared by the task force that reviewed part 1 of the Canada Labour Code in 1995 notes that there are few definitive studies dealing with the issue of the impact of laws against replacement worker on strike frequency and duration. It cites two studies that arrive at different conclusions.

In terms of more recent empirical research by the same authors referred to in Seeking a Balance, estimates based on limited Canadian data indicate that a legislative ban on replacement workers increases both the incidece and duration of strikes.

Another study concludes that a legislative ban on replacement workers can have an adverse impact on investment.

Do you have any recent empirical evidence that supports the view that a legislative ban on replacement workers during an industrial dispute does not adversely affect strike frequency or duration or hinder economic growth in firms covered by such laws?

In your opinion, what are the economic effects of laws that ban the use of replacement workers during a strike or a lockout?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Since the adoption, in 1977, of anti-scab legislation in Quebec, the Ministry of Labour in Quebec has been preparing annual reports on labour disputes. They clearly show that strikes falling under federal jurisdiction last twice as long as those under Quebec jurisdiction. This is solid and detailed data which is produced annually.

It should be noted that 92% of the labour force in Quebec is subject to the Quebec Labour Code, which prohibits the use of replacement workers. The fact that strikes last half as long has a significant effect on the income for both labour and management. Disputes don't last as long, and in most cases, people get back to work much more quickly. In this context, there are no losses, but only gains.

Through their figures, the Fraser Institute and the Institut économique de Montréal have come up with a structure under which it would be more advantageous for factories and management to use contract or sub-contract workers rather than hiring full-time workers, avoiding in that way having to compensate the staff in the case of a strike. They manipulate their figures in order to show that using contract workers rather than full-time workers would lead to a decrease in the number of workers in a province. They refer to 30,000 workers in Quebec and 17,000 in British Columbia.

First off, that is pure speculation, because nothing proves that to be the case. Moreover, employers, in a bid to ensure productivity and out of respect for their employees, attempt to provide acceptable working conditions in most cases.

This approach is based on American studies aimed at demonstrating that anti-scab legislation is useless. Yet, we know full well, because of a decrease in the duration of conflicts and violence on the picket lines, that there are fewer lawsuits going ahead. Employers and employees negotiate on an equal footing, under similar rules. In other words, the employer cannot turn a profit and employees cannot earn their wages. The negotiation takes place between equals, which leads to labour peace.

Since 1977, labour peace has been far greater in Quebec than elsewhere. Indeed, in the 1970s and prior to that, there had been extremely violent strikes; scabs were hired. Shots were even fired.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You said that strikes governed by the Quebec Labour Code lasted half as long. Could you give me figures to support your claim?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

From 1992 to 2002, under the Quebec Labour Code, strikes caused the loss of 15.9 days of work compared to 31.1 under the Canadian Labour Code. This data comes from the Ministry of Labour in Quebec.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Do you think that your bill disadvantages small employers who do not have multiple points of service/production and consequently are unable to shift operations to establishments that are not involved in a strike or a lock-out? If so, would you be willing to restrict the provisions of your bill to large companies?