Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming in today.

I want to comment, first, on something Ms. Davies referred to. She repeatedly used the phrase “climate of fear on the part of employers”. I find that interesting, given that virtually every lobbyist who has contacted my office has talked about the impact of increased violence on picket lines and things like that should this bill not go forward. I find it interesting to hear that terminology “on the part of employers” being used by Ms. Davies here.

I want to talk quickly about the people in my riding with regard to that. I have many union members in my riding and many friends who are members of unions. I want to say that I just don't see that. They're not violent people. They're hardworking people. They want fairness, and they want to be treated fairly. For the most part, most of them feel they are treated fairly by their employers, who are also working very hard. On this issue, balance is the key word here, and we do have that balance right now.

First off, I want to ask the minister a basic question. I want him to reiterate why he feels it is so inappropriate at this time to proceed with this bill to ban replacement workers.

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

Thank you, Mr. Lake. I think we can take another fact into consideration. Let us compare salary increases for employees under federal jurisdiction over the last few years to those for employees who are subject to anti-strike breaker legislation. I think that this is an interesting fact.

Wages increased by 2.5% in 2005 at the federal level. In Ontario, they went up by 2.3%, and in Quebec, 2.4%. Can anyone really maintain that employees under federal jurisdiction have the lowest wages, when compared to what is happening in the provinces, and that their wages are not comparable? I believe not. I believe that everyone can agree that there is a kind of balance in this respect, whether the person is a federal or a provincial employee. Whatever jurisdiction the workers are in, it works well. That is another important fact.

One could say that there is a problem if replacement workers did not have good wages compared to the others and did not benefit from the same wage. However, that problem does not exist. I will give those figures again. The percentages were 2.5% at the federal level, 2.3% for Ontario, 2.4% for Quebec and 2.3% in British Columbia, in 2005. In fact, you can see that the federal figure is slightly higher.

Let me tell you, sir, about another aspect. Once the bill had gone through second reading, business people started to realize what was going on. The President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony, stated the following:

This is a so-called remedy without a problem. And it's a remedy that will come back to cause great problems because it could result in the shutting down of vital transportation, telecommunications and financial services that are the backbone of our economy and which Canadians rely on.

Last week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents 90% of small- and medium-sized businesses, issued a similar opinion, stating that this had to stop because it did not make any sense. Moreover, Bill C-257 does not address essential services.

This is why you should not even do a clause-by-clause study of this bill, you should reject it. It does not make any sense.

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

There's a provision dealing with replacement workers currently in the Canada Labour Code. In accordance with the provisions, complaints can be filed with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. Can you tell us how many times the board has found an employer guilty of using replacement workers since this new legislation came into force in 1999?

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

Since 1999, representatives of various unions have complained to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board 19 times on the pretext that the employer had used replacement workers with the goal of undermining their union's representational capacity. The Canadian Industrial Relations Board has a mandate to deal immediately with such issues. Of the 19 complaints, 14 were withdrawn: the concerned party decided to withdraw it. Following that, two were rejected, and two others are still being studied by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. If you do the math, 19 complaints in 7 years amounts to two or three complaints on average per year. You can see that the legislation works well.

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

I just want to touch on essential services, quickly. It's come up a couple of times. Do you think the proposed provisions regarding essential services are adequate?

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

There are none. There is no essential service provided for in the bill. Essential services exist in the provinces, in the areas of health and education, which are under provincial jurisdiction. However, the current bill has no provision for essential services. If the bill is passed, 911 could stop working, because there are no essential services; nothing is provided for.

As I have already said, in order to establish essential services, we would have to plan for every small category, for example, air transportation, railways and telecommunications. Essential services would have to be identified for every subsector in order for the system to work. It is complicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

One final comment.... Mr. Sheikh.

[Munir Sheikh]

The CIRB has not even in a single case found an employer guilty of the question you asked. The debate here has been between essential and non-essential services. I think there is a category in the middle, which is, as the minister referred to it, really important services. The question there is whether or not for those really important services you do declare them essential or you do let the two parties deal with them in a way that they will not operate on a normal basis, but at some reduced basis. That is the purpose of the existing legislation, which simply says this is not essential, but this is not unimportant either, so let the two parties work this thing together. The business can operate at much reduced levels and the workers can go on strike.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to move to our second round, which will be five minutes.

We'll start with Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, and thank you you to the officials accompanying you for appearing before the committee studying Bill C-257.

Mr. Minister, I will make an observation which you may respond to if you wish.

We have the impression that you feel there is absolutely no merit to studying a bill on replacement workers. Since you became minister, we have the impression that a campaign of fear is being waged. It is as if you wanted to tell Canadians that this is terrible and makes no sense whatsoever.

But surely there are some aspects of this bill which deserve to be considered. I am not convinced that a campaign of fear is the best way to explain the facts and to properly enlighten Canadians. As has already been said, you should remember that you were a member of Parliament in the past and back then you voted in support of a similar bill. I don't think that at the time you waged a campaign of fear and said that the bill made no sense.

I would like to know what you think about this.

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

Mr. D'Amours, I would like to point out the following. A member who must deal with this type of issue and who, subsequently, becomes Labour minister must then consider things from a national point of view; I want to insist on this national point of view. The sectors which fall under our jurisdiction, such as transportation, banking and telecommunication, are so-called national services.

It is as if, suddenly, the functioning of the economy would not be considered an essential service any more. It is as if we had forgotten this extremely important dimension, which is essential if Canada is to function at all. When, in your capacity as members of Parliament, you study this bill, you will have to consider how it will apply on the ground once it is passed. You will have to decide whether the health of the Canadian economy is a very important factor or an issue of national interest. That is the angle from which the issue must be analyzed.

If memory serves, the members of the Bloc Québécois introduced this issue 10 times in 15 years. But even if this bill is adopted, they will never have to implement it. That will be up to you parliamentarians, and your successors as well. That is why you will have to be cautious and keep the principle of balance in mind.

I could tell you that the current legislation is bad and needs to be changed. Our government did not pass it. However, I will not do so. We agreed with you on that.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Minister, you said that the Bloc Québécois introduced this issue 10 times. Even if they had done so 25 times, the fact remains that, at the time, when you were a member of Parliament, you no doubt thought that it made some sense. Unless I'm mistaken, you were in government, and one of your colleagues introduced this private member's bill. This is a personal comment for which I do not expect a response.

That being said, I am concerned about situations involving a major interruption of service. Take telephone lines, for example. In your opinion, in the event of a major interruption, for whatever reason, would this bill, even if amended, allow for a solution without involving management? Management can always take over.

Do you think that if such a provision is not included, it might be in the future? We would have to try to eliminate any possibility that situations such as the ones you have described can happen, such as a 911 interruption. In any case, we will have to make sure that we find something that works.

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

Mr. D'Amours, I would like to come back to certain points. The law was amended between the time we were in office from 1984 to 1993 and the year 1999. In 1999, your government amended it, specifically to allow for replacement workers. However, it was clear that this would never be done to undermine the unions. Corrective measures were taken between the time we were in office and 1999. I might also remind you that in Ontario, in 1995, the government withdrew its anti-strike breaker law, and that in 2004, the other government, which was Liberal, reviewed the law and decided to maintain the status quo. This is why there is no anti-strike breaking law in Ontario.

Further, I would like to point out that every provision of the Canadian Labour Code is connected to all the others. But you are taking one part in isolation which you want to amend without due regard for the consequences. Indeed, Bill C-257 does not take into account the repercussions. It breaks the balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

We're going to move to Mr. Lessard for five minutes, please.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before the committee this morning.

Minister, I listened closely to what you said and I'm trying to understand. This is the second time you have appeared before our committee. I have a hard time understanding your reasons for defending this point of view. I think that, like myself, you grew up in Quebec. You are probably younger than I am, but you probably know about the labour dispute which lasted several months at Robin Hood. The employer sent in strike breakers and goons. Shots were even fired.

You surely also know about the labour conflict at Commonwealth Plywood Ltd—which involved people being gassed—as well as the disputes at Robin Hood, La Presse, and Pratt & Whitney, where police intervened with an anti-riot brigade to coerce workers into leaving the building, when in fact these people's jobs had been stolen. This is what happened between 1970 and 1976. You probably heard about this through the media, as we all did. I was a labour relations negotiator at the time. Let me tell you that since Quebec introduced its anti-strike breaker legislation, this type of thing has not happened again.

As for essential services, there have been strikes, including in hospitals, schools, and at the Société des alcools du Québec. These labour disputes lasted a long time. Don't think that workers are savages. When workers realize that their company might be in danger, or that the safety of the public might be threatened, they negotiate essential services with their employers. Even before the notion of essential services, negotiations were held, which led the Government of Quebec to adopt legislation on essential services and create the Conseil des services essentiels on the basis of the experience of both parties.

Mr. Minister, you say that this bill does not contain any measures providing for essential services. But this is the responsibility of the government. If you believe that the bill which is before us needs additional safeguards and provisions relating to essential services, it seems to me that it is up to the government to propose them, as the Government of Quebec did in the past. It was not the unions or workers that introduced legislation on essential services; it was the government. It was a democratic debate and the new law struck a balance.

Do you intend to introduce legislation on essential services? Or are you waiting for the unions to give you a sign?

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

Mr. Lessard, you spoke of labour unrest, gun shots, etc. I think that it is completely erroneous to think that by merely adopting an anti-strike breaker law we can put an end to such unacceptable behaviour.

The arguments are valid on both sides. This kind of behaviour is reprehensible.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

With all due respect, Minister, let me say that people are provoked when they see others taking away their jobs and their livelihoods.

Do you admit that since 1977, violent disputes—as you said—have no longer occurred in companies under provincial jurisdiction? Moreover, if there were such incidents, they were on a very small scale and not on a large scale as we can see.

With regard to disputes under federal jurisdiction, as we saw at Cargill, we witnessed some very brutal confrontations. We could give other examples of this. I do not want to get caught up in rhetoric, so let us stick to concrete facts.

Are you aware of the fact that this happened after the legislation was adopted?

In this respect, have you discussed the matter with your provincial counterparts in provinces where there is anti-strike breaker legislation? Have you discussed with your counterparts in Quebec, for instance, their experience with anti-strike breaker legislation? In Quebec, there are no more doubts about this. Nonetheless, they have had a much more concrete experience with this than Ontario did. Have you discussed this with those people?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could we have just a quick response, Minister? We're almost out of time here.

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

Did it occur to you that if Bill C-257 were adopted by the House of Commons, people could resort to extreme behaviour because the country's economy would be completely paralyzed?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Minister, did that happen in Quebec?

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

We cannot argue about this, Mr. Lessard. This is a false issue.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

You were the one who brought it up, Mr. Minister.

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

You were the one who brought it up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Hold on a sec, we're into debate here.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Minister, you were the one who said that it would upset the economy. That did not happen in Quebec.