Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have, Mr. Lessard.

We're going to move on to the next round. That's overtime there.

We're going to move to Ms. Davies. Go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

That last comment, that if this bill is adopted we'll end up paralyzing the economy, I think is a very irresponsible statement to make. I don't think there's any evidence that will happen if this bill is adopted. We do have anti-strike-breaker legislation in British Columbia. I've not seen any evidence that legislation has been harmful in any way. In fact, it's been the contrary. It's helped create an environment of stability, understanding, and labour peace. The only difficulty we've had is in the case of disputes under federal jurisdiction. Because we haven't had this kind of legislation, we have had difficulties. I just want to make that comment.

We should also remember that the bill we voted on was in principle, so we are talking about the principles of this bill. We're now at committee to look at the bill in detail and to consider what changes or amendments need to be made. So I would like to ask you that. It seems to me that as minister you have a responsibility to look at this bill and to consider what improvements, from your point of view, can be made.

The fact is that now, under the Canada Labour Code, under section 87.4, there is a provision whereby either an employer or a union can go to the CIRB if they haven't come to an agreement on what is considered to be an essential service. So there is a provision now that does exist. I'd be interested to know whether you consider that to be adequate or whether you think there need to be additional provisions.

I think it would be much more constructive if, as the minister, you would provide some helpful information to this committee as to what you'd like to see, in terms of this bill, to improve it, from your perspective. We may or may not agree with you, but at least we'll have the benefit of what your constructive analysis is, rather than making outlandish statements that this bill will paralyze the economy. I find it astounding to say that.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Ms. Davies, we can predict some emergency situations, but only in a limited way. Pursuant to section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, the employer, the union and the employees in the bargaining unit are obliged to maintain certain activities to prevent imminent and serious threats to public safety or health.

If a national strike breaks out, if banks are paralyzed, this threatens not only the health and safety of some individual, but it paralyzes the entire economy.

As the Minister of Labour, I am responsible for trying to ensure that the parties in a labour dispute can work things out through negotiation. This is why we have created mechanisms for conciliation, arbitration and so forth.

Bill C-257 introduces new measures. Some activities that are under federal jurisdiction are essential for the Canadian economy. Transportation, communications, airports and ports affect every region of the country. If any part of these major services goes on strike and the employer cannot use replacement workers, the entire country could be paralyzed.

We must not give too much power to either party. If you give one party the power to paralyze everything, this could have enormous consequences. This is why it is important to try to keep a balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

We're going to move to the last questioner of this round and of this session of the first meeting.

Mr. Anders, you have five minutes, sir.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, my understanding is that a small union such as baggage handlers at an airport could probably shut down the airport. I'm going to have to assume not all those units would be considered essential, according to the statements of the other members.

In that case, it raises some interesting scenarios. With regard to our airports, if you shut down Halifax and Montreal, for example, that would meanthat for things we may ship out of those places, like seafood, lobster, it would be better for people to be dealing with places like Boston or New York. Companies like FedEx or Emery or DHL wouldn't see those places as worthwhile to use as hubs. Instead, they'd be far more accommodated using Boston or New York.

As well, when it comes to certain goods, like textiles, for example, it makes sense that more jobs would go to China, as opposed to manufacturing textiles here, if the supply were interrupted or caused problems. Agricultural products could be obtained in other places as well. And even for some specialized industries, like Bombardier, frankly their machinery and tools and that type of thing would be easier to obtain through other places.

Even some industries, hydroelectricity for example, if it were affected by this and if Canada--and more particularly Quebec--became an unreliable supplier of hydroelectricity to the northeastern United States, they would be forced to find alternate sources and it would probably affect the pricing and what not.

I'm wondering if you could comment on some of those things.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Anders, I think that we are all able to imagine the impact of a strike in any sector of economic activity and more specifically when it is on a national scale, as is the case for the sensitive sectors that we are covering, which are under federal jurisdiction. One million four hundred thousand workers are under our jurisdiction, 600,000 of them are in the public sector and 800,000 in the private sector.

This is why, when parliamentarians studied the legislation in 1999, they decided, following the recommendations in the Sims report, to introduce a new concept that would allow the use of replacement workers—this should not be done with the intention of undermining the union's representational capacity—and granted the Canadian Industrial Hansard Relations Board the right to intervene immediately if such a thing occurred. I think that this was the ideal model for balancing labour-management relations.

People want to break this balance, but essential services are not provided for. Now establishing essential services is very complicated. Public health and security have always been considered as essential services. Our own health and our own lives must not be endangered.

But we will have to make a decision whereby essential services also include the Canadian economy. I do not think that in this room, in three or four days, we can imagine and envisage all the changes that we need to bring to the legislation in order to cover everything. This is a monumental task that we will have to undertake. This is why I think that the current bill must be withdrawn. The balance has been maintained since the legislation was adopted in 1999.

Let me remind you, sir, that in 1995, when Ontario decided to change the legislation back to what it had been, there was a good reason for it. Ontario had anti-strike breaker legislation. It changed its mind and withdrew it. In 2004, McGuinty's Liberal government reviewed the legislation and decided not to restore the anti-strike breaker law.

Moreover, we noticed that wherever there is anti-strike breaker legislation, disputes are more lengthy than in places where there is none. We must also remember that there have been long-drawn-out disputes in other places. Members should not think that anti-strike breaker legislation will put an end to long disputes. There are concrete examples, and I will take the opportunity to come back to them shortly. You will see that certain disputes can last a long time even if there is anti-strike breaker legislation. There is nothing that proves that these things change in the absence of anti-strike breaker legislation. There is no obvious proof. We cannot change legislation based on hypothetical evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Five minutes goes by pretty quickly.

I'd just like to take this time now, as we wrap up, to thank the minister for being here today. I believe your staff indicated that if we'd like to bring you back on this issue, you'd be prepared to come back on Thursday, or next year, should we decide to hear more witnesses when we come back in February, if that's the will of the committee.

I know that we have had some witnesses who couldn't make it because of the short timelines. Even today we've had some that couldn't make it because of conflicts.

Is it correct that you are prepared, Mr. Blackburn, if the committee so desires, to come back and talk to Bill C-257 if need be?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chairman, given the importance of the issue and of maintaining the balance in labour-management relations, we should all make decisions that are in the best interest of Canada, companies, entrepreneurs, unions and non-union workers, because if the economy were paralyzed, they would also suffer the consequences. Everyone would suffer.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by noting that despite the existence of anti-scab legislation, the Noranda mine workers union's strike lasted for 11 months; the strike of the Société des alcools du Québec lasted 3 months; the employees' strike at Lallemand lasted 5 months. More recently, the employees' strike at Maple Leaf Mills Ltd lasted for a year.

With or without anti-strike breaker legislation, we cannot prevent lengthy disputes. This is unfortunate; everyone wants to come to an agreement, but this is part of the free negotiation of collective agreements.

I thank everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you once again for taking the time to come out today.

The meeting is adjourned.