Yes, it is true that the only difference between the documents from the Fraser Institute and those from the Montreal Economic Institute is the language in which they are written, since the data come from the same source.
Both institutes quote a study that, for example, ran from 1967 to 1993, and they treat it as a panacea. They quote another study done by J. Budd in 1996, whose data cover 1966 to 1985. And finally, they quote M. Gunderson and A. Melino who wrote a paper in 1990 using data from 1967 to 1985. That is also a major reference point for the institute, but it is rather sad to see. Moreover, the data relate only to large corporations and say nothing about the small and medium-sized businesses.
The trouble with these studies is that, at the same time, the departments of labour have a duty to their citizens. I am referring to Quebec and British Columbia, which provide specific data almost to the year. These provinces provide data on an annual basis. The situated is looked at properly, with data for the entire labour force. A worker is no less important because he is employed by a small business rather than by a multinational corporation. This has to be understood; it's essential. We must not lose sight of the individual.
As to the respect that can flow from anti-scab legislation, everyone has to play by the same rules. As I told Mr. Regan earlier, when an employer is no longer turning a profit and the employees are not being paid, they negotiate to find solutions that everyone can live with and try to make the strike or work stoppage as short as possible.
Think of the consequences when scabs cross the picket line. It leads to violence, and you can imagine what happens once the strike is over! When I say violence, I don't only mean a punch on the nose; it can also lead to psychological violence or trauma. The employees know that the plant is still operating and people are making money doing their job while they are negotiating to get back to work. It makes no sense. It is reminiscent of old-time unbridled capitalism.
And we must not forget what will happen once the strike or lockout is over. If the replacement worker is a well-known member of the community, a brother, a neighbour, an old friend or even an acquaintance, then imagine the bad blood and the poisoned atmosphere in the plant, particularly if it is located in a small community.
Once a strike has ended, replacement workers can find themselves embroiled in litigation. That is another serious consequence. The union charges management, which can find itself in a sticky situation. If you throw into the mix goons who are not permanent employees but whose behaviour gets out of hand, then all of these people may find themselves facing the long arm of the law.
All things considered, I would say that, at the end of the day, anti-scab legislation would provide the community with a certain level of social harmony during negotiations, when the dispute gets tough, regardless of whether the employees are covered by the Canada Labour Code or by a provincial labour code. We must not forget that this involves their bread and butter.
So I would encourage you not to quote the Montreal Institute or the Fraser Institute in a classroom, because it would be a breach of ethics. Use the governments' official numbers instead, since they are applying the legislation in this area.