Human Resources Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Let's use firefighters and ambulance attendants. During a crisis, or a strike, essential services must be maintained. If you are talking about Bell Canada or SaskTel in your region, there are provisions to ensure that essential services are maintained.

You have given me an example, but these are essential services.

I want to give you another very simple example. For the past 29 years in Quebec and since 1993 in British Columbia, during labour disputes affecting key sectors, such as security or services essential to people's lives, the necessary measures have been taken.

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

Telecommunications is an essential—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake, that's all the time we have. We're going to have to come back to you in the second round.

Mr. Coderre, for five minutes, please.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I hope that my five-minute period will seem as long as that of my friend Mr. Lake. That way, I will also be able to take 15 minutes to talk and it will be interesting.

Mr. Nadeau, I have been interested in the issue of replacement workers since 1988. We must be careful not to say “scabs” because that word is negative and pejorative. I quite agree with you: when you talk about preventing the hiring of replacement workers, we must maintain the balance of labour-employer relations, this must not become an irritants. However, social problems can create significant economic irritant, because we have to live together with the results.

I think it would be beneficial to continue to talk about essential services. Since I am a Quebecker and I have experienced several strikes as a consumer and a member of the public, I think it is important for our committee to have you reiterate that it is important for this bill to maintain essential services.

In fact, two aspects of the bill are problematic. That is why I am advocating an in-depth discussion. These two elements must be taken into consideration.

Can I have some quiet, please? There's a lot of talking. There are two debates here.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

One moment, Mr. Coderre. I would ask everyone to stop talking, please, so that the questioner can make himself herad. Thank you.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

There are two issues that interest me.

First, essential services need to be protected, thereby reassuring us. If this is not clear enough, we will propose an amendment to ensure that this fully respects the situation in Quebec that, in my mind, is perfect in this regard.

Second, telecommunications is also an essential issue. We suffered through the CBC strike. There is a complication, because legal opinions differ on the impact of subsection 94(2.4) on subsections 94(2.1) and 94(2.2). Let's be clear. If we oppose replacement workers but we allow management the opportunity to still provide its services, we must ensure that a journalist on strike would not have the right to file stories. I think this is essential. We want to ensure that there are no replacement workers, but if there is a strike in the telecommunications sector, we must also ensure that this company can continue to provide services.

I would like your quick comments on these two points, and we can continue our discussion afterward.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Although this does not apply to union members as such, we must understand that in a company, the management, the superintendents, the executives can run the company. We know that this is not always possible for all companies; it depends on the sector. This is an example.

With regard to essential services, we must first of all draw up a list. I think it must be adapted to specific sectors. Now, we have the health sector, public safety and education, which are under provincial jurisdiction. There are also municipal services such as fire fighters, ambulance attendants and so forth. We should determine which services are essential and which ones are not in consultation with the union, the employer and the federal government, which also has its prerogatives. I will not list them all now and I do not want to get into a debate, but we do have to consider these factors. We all agree with this.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Nadeau, we must be clear. With or without a list, we must make sure that the bill also protects citizens from problems caused by lockouts or strikes. In this sense, as we clarify the bill, we must be able to propose the needed amendments that take all these things into account including, among others, the situation in Quebec and the situation in British Columbia.

On the record, Mr. Chairman, we're not here to create other irritants. We are here to have a balanced way and to make sure that we not only protect the balanced way between the employers and the employees, but that we don't also create some negative fallout for the citizens.

I think that transportation plays an important role.

However, I am not satisfied with your answer regarding telecommunications. This matter will be debated, and there will be points of agreement and disagreement on both sides. Contrary to my Conservative friends are saying, both sides have done their research and taken up firm positions. I think that two meetings will be enough.

Are you prepared to clarify what would happen if a telecommunications company such as a television or a radio station went on strike? Could management still provide services to the public? When news is involved, the company is not alone in doing the work. We must show that news of outside events can still be broadcast. In such cases, will the management of radio or television stations be able to do that work?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

To my knowledge—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Nadeau, can we have a quick response? We're just over time.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

All right.

Management will indeed be able to carry out the necessary tasks to meet essential needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

We're going to move to Madame Lavallée, for five minutes, please.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nadeau, I am very glad that we are discussing essential services. There are some points that need clarifying. The bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois is effectively the same as the legislation that has been in force in Quebec since 1977. This legislation enables unionized workers involved in a labour dispute to earn extra income to feed their families and pay their rent. We know, however, that such cases are exceptional. Moreover, management of a company involved in a labour dispute are allowed to work. We have seen this happen in cases like the SAQ dispute that took place a year or two ago.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I think that it was last year, during the Christmas season.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

In any case, we saw that management got to work and continued selling their products to the Quebec public. Actually, I should have said the nation of Quebec, but this would involve an entirely different issue.

The right to strike even applies at the federal level. The correctional officers union, for instance, agreed with the employer that all services were essential. You are looking somewhat puzzled. I note that it is a sad situation for these people, but it is important for the people of Quebec and Canada that correctional officers stay on the job. We cannot do without their services.

Since 1977, in Quebec, due to the provisions that forbid the use of strikebreakers by employers, the unions negotiated each essential service separately. With regard to telecommunications, I think that the CBC union representatives will raise the issue with their employer and propose new provisions for essential services to cover tragic events like the shooting at Dawson College.

In Quebec, we also created a mechanism called The essential services council. It was set up to deal with certain misunderstandings and conflicts. Mr. Nadeau, the bill you are presenting is exactly like the Quebec legislation. We can refer to what has been done in Quebec over the past 30 years to better understand how these provisions work and how the system is balanced and serves the public's needs.

I want to discuss figures. The figures given by the government of the nation of Quebec have always proved the value of anti-scab legislation. In 2004, for instance, 7% of the Quebec labour force was under federal jurisdiction, but this labour force accounted for 18% of the lost work time.

In fact, Mr. Nadeau, I do not want to hear about figures. In Quebec, we do not need figures: we simply need to look at what is actually happening. It is clear that long and bitter disputes that turn to violence or widespread vandalism always occur in organizations that are under federal jurisdiction. I would like you to tell us more about this fact.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I talked earlier about essential services. When there will be anti-scab legislation at the federal level, the union and management—the management could be the State, depending on the working environment—could determine, depending on according to the sector involved, which services the population has a right to receive, even while negotiations or labour disputes are going on.

The toughest strikes in Quebec, since anti-scab legislation was adopted in 1978, were lengthy strikes. Let us take, for instance, the strike at Vidéotron, which lasted more than 300 days and during which all kinds of incidents occurred because the strike was so drawn out. The point is not whether the union or management was responsible, but because of property damage, there were subsequent lawsuits and the situation was really very sad. We are not talking about something that happened a very long time ago: this happened in 2003.

There was also the case of the Sécur company, where styrofoam was injected into cash-dispensing machines; the dispute had dragged on so long that violence bred more violence. There was also the Cargill company, in the Baie-Comeau region, that had a most bitter strike that dragged on for ages, more than one hundred days. Another case was that of Radio-Nord, in the telecommunications sector. Once again, because there is no anti-scab legislation, there are no rules for determining essential services. We mentioned, for example, CHNC, the station at New Carlisle, where after some time, the replacement workers themselves asked to be unionized, but this, of course, did not happen.

All these strikes occurred in companies whose employees are subject to the Canadian Labour Code on Quebec territory. In light of these facts, I invite the entire committee to look into the situation of provinces that have anti-scab legislation and to follow the example of what has been done in Quebec for the past 29 years and in British Columbia since 1993. I think that you will discover a successful experiment in labour relations, which have become much more serene. This is why we now have situations where negotiations between labour and management are much healthier, more transparent, and where strikes are not as lengthy and there is less monetary loss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

I just want to point out to Madame Lavallée that she forgot to add “within a united Canada” as part of what she was saying.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Davies, for five minutes, please.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Excuse me, but I did not hear what you said.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just for a couple of clarifications more specifically about the bill, and just to come back to the question of essential services, I just want to understand that you are proposing that it would be done on a case-by-case basis, based on the industry or the business in question. If a legal strike took place, the employer would sit down—

In B.C., there's a process. The union and the employer go to the Labour Relations Board and actually make proposals about what are considered to be central services. The board, either through consensus or a directive, actually then designates what are essential services, depending on what the business is or what the service is. You are suggesting a similar process here. There wouldn't be a list of essential services. It would depend on what the sector was or what the business was.

I don't see anything in here that references that, unless I've missed it. Do we actually need to add a section that would allow that mechanism to begin?

Secondly, just to come back to proposed subsection 94(2.4), where you say “The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures”, it's just not clear. If you look at proposed subsection (2.2), it's dealing with the ability of the employer to use management for services. I'm not sure what “conservation measures” are. Is it referring to the wrong proposed subsection? Is it referring to proposed subsection (2.3), which is “Protection of property”? Could you give me some clarification of that?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Subsection 94(2.4) is chiefly meant to preserve jobs, and not to ensure the production of goods and services. It is important to understand that these negotiations must be carried out. We must not wait for labour disputes to arise. When we start negotiating an agreement, when we know that the next collective agreement is expiring, if there is effective anti-scab legislation, then, first of all, the partners must sit down and define the essential needs of the company sector by sector, because we could not have the same list for every sector.

In some cases, this will be more specific and in other cases it will be more general. In the case of disaster or security problems, if we have to call in the armed forces, as was the case during the ice storm in Quebec, then the issue is not the same.

Subsection 94(2.4) offers the possibility of ensuring that citizens are secure in their daily lives. Depending on the sector in which you work, you will be affected if negotiations or labour disputes are going on. This list will have to be drawn up before adopting the bill or with the bill in mind.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

For clarification, in subclause (2.4), when it speaks about conservation measures in subsection (2.2), you are actually referring to what has now been called the “essential services”. Is that correct?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

It can be interpreted that way, but the reason for these clauses is the concern about essential services. These are changes to the Labour Code. With regard to the wording, when it comes time to negotiate, we'll have to look at what is being done elsewhere and consider the different experiences of unions, employers, the State or private enterprise. Ultimately, it is still the State that will determine whether the situation is serious or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

It seems to me, as we move forward with this legislation, this is one area that's going to have to be a little bit more laid out, because there is still some ambiguity in terms of what it actually relates to. It's something to consider as we move forward.

Mr. Brown, you have five minutes.