Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable members, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss Bill C-257, An Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (Replacement Workers).
As you know, if adopted this bill could have serious consequences for the conduct of labour-management relations in the federally regulated private sector, and I think that it is important that we all take a considered look at these consequences before any irrevocable decisions are made.
Labour legislation obviously impacts both labour and management and any law affecting their relationship must take into account the aspirations of both parties. But the impact of labour management relations goes beyond the domain of the two parties; they affect national economic and social outcomes. They affect production, employment, wage gains, profits, individual income, productivity and competitiveness, to name a few of the key elements of an economic and social system.
Mr. Chairman, our government is based on principle. In the context of labour management relations, there are two key principles that apply: balance and evidence.
The current provisions of Part I of the Canada Labour Code came into being after a long and considered study that included a Task Force chaired by Andrew Sims, a former chair of the Alberta Labour Relations Board. The Task Force report, entitled Seeking a Balance, attempted to do exactly what its title said—to balance the interests of both employers and employees fairly. Even the Task Force did not reach unanimity on the issue of replacement workers, but the majority report recommended a provision that would give employers the flexibility to meet their operating responsibilities, while preventing them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives.
I am going to repeat these three short lines because they are important: allow employers to meet their operating responsibilities while using replacement workers, but not in a fashion that would undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives. That's what you call balance.
The current provisions of the Canada Labour Code are based on this very reasonable compromise recommended by Mr. Sims. Part I of the Code is the product of a considerable effort to address the interests of all stakeholders, not just the interests of one stakeholder at the expense of all others. Bill C-257 would substitute a very one-sided approach, and would undo the years of work that went into developing fair and balanced labour legislation at the federal level.
The industries that fall under federal jurisdiction operate in many essential sectors such as telecommunications right across Canada, not just in one province; transportation Canada-wide; grain handling; and longshoring. A work stoppage in any of these industries causes significant disruption, not just for the employer but for the many Canadians who depend on the effective and efficient operation of these key infrastructure industries.
Before the 1999 amendment to the Code, there were numerous work stoppages in the federal jurisdiction that required Parliamentary intervention in the form of back-to-work legislation, in order to ensure that these important services continued without interruption. Since the 1999 amendments, there has been no such need for Parliamentary intervention—a fact that I submit, Mr. Chairman, indicates that the right balance between the competing interests of labour and management has been found, and should be maintained.
Bill C-257 would disrupt this fragile balance. It would remove the economic discipline that obliges unions and employers to negotiate reasonably. The balance found in the current legislation enables unions to put pressure on employers while simultaneously allowing employers to operate at some level during a labour dispute, without overly compromising the quality of services provided.
In other words, imagine there was a strike in Canada's port or railway services sector. That would have an impact throughout the entire country and would affect the economy from coast-to-coast. It is for this reason that we must consider maintaining the current balance when it comes to using replacement workers. The employer must not undermine the union's representativeness. Should the union deem this to be the case during a strike, it may lodge a complaint against the employer, before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.
Take air transport, for example. It is an important public service which has a major impact on Canada's economy. No one would dispute this. Let's imagine the baggage handlers and flight attendants of a particular carrier decide to go on strike. If all of a sudden these groups go on strike, the airport authorities will make an effort to continue to provide services to certain destinations, both domestically and abroad, and maintain some services, while being fully aware that things could not continue to operate that way for very long. And it wouldn't be in the interest of flight attendants or baggage handlers to unduly prolong the dispute. They would be aware of the stakes and what they might lose both at the bargaining table and with respect to the public's opinion should the conflict drag on. Both parties hold some sway in such a confrontation and this is exactly what strikes the balance we enjoy under the current legislation, which was enacted in 1999.
The use of replacement workers helps to maintain this balance without giving either party too much power. The proof is in the pudding: 19 complaints have been lodged with the Canada Industrial Relations Board over the past seven years, and only two are still being considered.
Yes, the system works. Some people who agree with me, however, maintain that air transport does not provide essential services such as those dispensed in hospitals and that air transport is not a matter of occupational health and safety. Nevertheless, no one can deny that air transport is an important service which, if not provided, will have nation-wide economic ramifications.
The economic impact of a strike in the port of Montreal or Vancouver, or a strike in the rail sector, whether we are talking freight or passenger transportation, would be just as devastating as the examples I referred to earlier.
What would we do in Canada if the 911 service went on strike? Do we have any essential services? The current bill does not include any. Everything would be paralyzed.
A failure to recognize the Canada-wide economic repercussions of a prohibition on the use replacement workers amounts to a failure to acknowledge the realities of federally regulated workers. If we ban employers from using replacement workers during a strike, we take away their right to continue to operate in an attempt to keep their business and the employees. This means potentially going under or having to lay off employees.
Where the use of replacement workers during a strike prohibited, as is suggested in Bill C-257, both employers and employees will suffer. The balance will be disrupted, and both parties' right to choose is taken away from them. How can you take away both parties' right to make a choice and still say that Bill C-257 has unanimous support? It simply isn't the case, and if you need to ask the question, you've got your answer.
A second principle that must be taken into account in determining whether a law should be modified or not is the principle of evidence. Before a law is modified, there should be clear evidence showing that the change will be beneficial. Mr. Chairman, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to show that the changes contained in Bill C-257 will bring any benefits to the labour-management relationship or to the national economy.
Contrary to the claims of supporters of this Bill, there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages. In fact, Quebec continues to have significantly more work stoppages per employee than Ontario, a province with a comparable economy that does not prohibit the use of replacement workers.
Secondly, in jurisdictions where legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers is in place, there has been no decrease in the average duration of work stoppages. In fact, independent academic studies have concluded that prohibiting the use of replacement workers during labour disputes is associated with more frequent and longer strikes.
Mr. Chairman, our collective bargaining system is built on the right of both parties to periodically test their respective economic strength, and the collective bargaining outcomes that result reflect the true worth of the employees' services in a free market place. If this discipline of economic reality is removed from the collective bargaining arena, then the possibility is heightened that one side will pursue a position that is so unreasonable that it cannot be sustained, and the enterprise will fail. Is this environment that we want to create for our key infrastructure industries? I say no, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the lack of evidence.
In closing, I reiterate that the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code represent an appropriate balance, they have worked well for the last seven years, and there is no evidence that legislation banning the use of replacement workers will reduce the frequency or duration of work stoppages. We are risking economic havoc if we tinker with the current legislation in the manner proposed by Bill C-257.
I therefore urge committee members to put partisan politics aside, to consider what is in the best interests of all Canadians and the free collective bargaining system that we all believe in passionately, and to refuse to proceed any further with this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
