Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

The meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentation. There will be two tours of questioning, one of seven minutes and a second round of five minutes.

I will once again try to keep a close eye on the clock. It's such a tight timeline. We are already 15 minutes behind, which just means that some of the members will be eating their lunch on their lap probably sometime a little bit later on.

I do want to remind everyone, though, that the questions should come to the chair. I'm going to start with Mr. Brazier, for seven minutes, and then we'll move all the way around the table.

Mr. Brazier.

[Don Brazier, Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication (FETCO)]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've been asked to pass along the regrets of George Smith, who is the chair of FETCO and who would normally be attending a hearing dealing with a bill of this magnitude. Unfortunately, as you know, we were all faced with very short notice with respect to appearing. He unfortunately is tied up in Montreal.

I didn't have a chance to speak to Ms. Lafrance before the session, but I hope you got the copies of the brief, which I sent on Sunday. They're bilingual.

First of all, I'll take two seconds out to give you a little bit of a biographical sketch. In a previous existence I worked for the CPR for 30 years. I was in labour relations. On three occasions when I worked for the CPR—and maybe some of the members, those who were around in 1995, were involved in this—railway employees had to be sent back to work as a result of a strike that was causing a significant amount of harm to the Canadian economy. So I know something about essential services.

For the last 25 years, I have been involved in public policy discussions with respect to amending labour law and regulations. I have been involved in the development of amendments to part II of the code, part III of the code, part I of the code, and a number of other regulations and legislation, so I have quite an experience in terms of legislative development.

I'll start off by pointing out that early in our history labour relations came under federal jurisdiction. It wasn't until a court decision in 1926—actually, the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council—that it was determined that labour unions are not agents of interprovincial trade and commerce, but in fact civil rights organizations, and therefore were more properly regulated by the provinces, except, of course, for those industries designated for the benefit and the good of Canada as a whole, and those are the industries that are listed in part I or the start of the Canada Labour Code. They are under federal jurisdiction because they are of a nature essential to Canada.

As Ms. Lavallée pointed out in response or in a question to the minister, you are right; federal jurisdiction industries and provincial jurisdiction industries are not the same.

I'm not going to go through a list of the reasons they are essential. We know the post office, communications, and transportation provide essential services, so I don't have to go through the list.

If somebody would like to see a good synopsis or a snapshot of the federal sector, I would suggest they go to the introductory chapter of the Harry Arthurs report on part III of the Canada Labour Code, which was recently presented to the minister, probably a few weeks ago, because it kind of encapsulates the sector.

One thing that is not unique, of course, to the federal sector is that a very high proportion of the employees in the federal sector are employees of large companies. You can think of the banking industry, which is an oligopoly. There are five or six huge banks, and I know there are a lot more other banks as well. They're large companies that employ a large number of people. It's the same with radio and television, communications, transportation, and railways, for example: large organizations, a mature bargaining relationship, very heavily regulated, which often becomes a factor in collective bargaining, technologically advanced, in a constant state of reorganization, and often multiple unions, which is another characteristic of the federal sector. Of course there are multiple union situations in the provincial jurisdiction, but not to the same extent as you have federally—and believe me, having worked with an organization such as the CPR, which had 14 unions when I started, the labour relations problems multiply.

You add all this, the regulatory change, the technological change, the interplay between unions, and you can understand the kinds of labour relations tensions that build up.

Now, I don't want in any way to demean the provincial sector. There are some very, very important industries that come under provincial jurisdiction. I'll just mention three: the automobile industry, forest products, and oil extraction and processing. But they don't have the same impact. Sure, a strike of the automobile industry if the entire industry were struck in southern Ontario--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have two minutes.

[Don Brazier]

I only have two minutes left? Gee, I've hardly started. Well, if I only have two minutes left, I'm just going to go through a couple of other points.

This would be the most draconian legislation we have federally. I listened this morning to everybody talking about the essential services provision. That would be the equivalent of section 111.17 in Quebec, and section 72 in B.C. There's nothing in here. There's nothing. There's not a thing in here. Everybody can talk about it. Of course you can have an essential services provision, but where is it? There is no essential services provision. This is more draconian than B.C. Even Blouin--and you quoted it--would have allowed contracting out of work that is prohibited by Bill C-257.

By the way, I'm not going to talk about the numbers. I think there has been too much discussion about numbers. This bill isn't going to be determined or judged on different numbers. But Blouin himself, on page 174 of his report, indicated that the data are inconclusive as to the impact of replacement worker legislation. That's right in his report, on page 174.

The only other thing, if I'm running out of time, is that I would certainly never suggest that this is the proper way to amend the Canada Labour Code. But if one were actually to even consider this, there's a whole pile of other areas you would have to take into consideration. The workload on the CIRB will increase considerably as a result of this. There will be multiple requests under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code.

One very significant and controversial amendment to the code, in 1999, was the 60-day conciliation procedure. Nobody believed it worked. It was really controversial. As a matter of fact, we were really pushing the envelope by putting that kind of provision in, because it was felt that this would increase strikes. I would suggest that you have to give serious consideration as to whether that is an appropriate provision when you have a ban on replacement workers. You'd have to look at the rules dealing with strikes and lockouts, and of course the one I mentioned, and that is the fact that there's no essential services provision.

As I indicated before, if passed, this would make this the most draconian piece of labour legislation in the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Brazier.

I believe we have Mr. Côté, and is it Alborino as well?

Who's going to be speaking on your behalf?

[Santo Alborino, Executive Counsellor, Human Resources, National Bank of Canada, Canadian Bankers Association]

I will be speaking.

Thank you, sir. Seven minutes, please.

[Santo Alborino]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to participate in this public hearing on Bill C-257, which is about replacement workers.

Just a couple of statistics. We represent 54 chartered banks, which employ over 249,000 Canadians, 218,000 of whom fall under federal jurisdiction. In addition to our employees, we also represent the interests of literally millions of customers across the country. These are Canadians who depend on the banking system 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The CBA is strongly opposed to this bill. We believe it is seriously flawed and should not be passed. I would like to highlight just four items that are of concern to us.

First of all, financial services in the 21st century are very much reliant on the telecommunications industry for the delivery of banking services and operate on the interbank payments system. The clearing and settlement system is largely managed by the Canadian Payments Association, and the ability to enable payment exchange is the core of the payments system.

The banning of replacement workers by Bill C-257 poses a high degree of operational risk in financial services in the event of a strike in the telecommunications industry, if telecommunications companies are not able to make use of replacement workers. In such situations, where telephone or data transmission lines are not maintained and become disabled, there could potentially be severe repercussions on consumers and business customers. We are really talking about the everyday Canadian here. We're not talking about the banking industry as such. It touches every one of you.

Banking services have been revolutionized by advances in telecommunications technology over the past several decades, so the geographic barriers that existed have been dismantled and the network of electronics has made banking possible to almost every Canadian, regardless of the vastness of our country. It really has been a benefit. Canadians have embraced this and have made this choice out of convenience and have opted to use these banking services through the Internet and through all kinds of electronic means. We strongly believe technology will continue to grow and become widely used by Canadians through Internet access.

Electronic financial services delivery is provided through various networks. Our written submission will provide you with a partial list of those systems, but let me just mention a few.

The Canadian Payments Association manages four major networks provided by major communications carriers. One of these networks supports electronic fund transfers--mainly business to business--company payrolls, pre-authorized debits, and bill payments. Again, it impacts every one of us. Literally millions of messages are exchanged on this system on a daily basis. A strike by carriers that provides these lines, regardless of how small or how remote they are, could have major consequences--and I say could--if the line was not maintained or was allowed to fail for some reason.

While there is a backup system, it is manual and does not function as effectively as the main system. Telephone dial-up lines, credit and debit point-of-sale terminals for the provision of goods and services to Canadians--we're talking about Canadians, not the banking industry. Canadians are the world's top debit card users. The Interac direct payment service allows customers to use their debit cards to pay for purchases at retail stores. Services provided through Interac's financial institution members offered by 391,000 retailers who use this system across Canada would be really affected.

Quick statistics when we talk about the impact on the economy: in 2005, over three billion direct payment transactions valued at more than $137 billion were processed through the IDP system.

Internet banking uses the services of large Internet service providers who in turn rely on the provision of telecommunications. A 2006 survey by the Canadian Bankers Association indicates that 27% of Canadians rely on this method to do their banking, and 45% of Canadians did at least some of their banking through the online system. As I mentioned before, we believe these figures will continue to increase as the wide spread of Internet and technology goes forward.

The issue is this. The Canadian Payments Association has indicated the possibility of telecommunications failure as a major operational risk for the Canadian payments system. Delays in the payment system, let alone failure, can be devastating for businesses and for customers. The ability to use replacement workers in a telecommunications strike, whether at a regional or national level, would be essential to maintain the integrity of the system.

The second major concern is that the bill does not recognize the unique, national role of the federally regulated industries. It ignores the fact that they constitute the infrastructure that provides stability and keeps the Canadian economy running. All of the federally regulated industries are essential to the business operations of the country through their sometimes complex, highly integrated networks of transportation, of telecommunications, and of financial services. A failure in any one part of these federally regulated industries, such as airlines, or—I think we mentioned it before—ports or financial services, may have business and/or consumer impacts of a national scope. The ability to maintain a minimum level of service is critical.

Statistics that have been put forward by supporters of this bill have been selective and do not reflect the true picture of labour unrest and strike experience in the provinces where there is currently a ban on replacement workers.

We have consulted statistics that are publicly available, by the way, on the website of Human Resources and Social Development Canada's Workplace Information Directorate. Our objective was to determine whether legislation limiting the use of replacement workers in Quebec and B.C. has produced more harmonious labour relationships in those provinces when compared with Ontario, which with the exception of a few years between 1992 and 1995 has not banned the use of replacement workers. We looked at 30 years of data, from 1976 to 2005, and avoided the simple year-to-year comparisons, which are potentially misleading, depending when the contracts came due or when they were negotiated.

You will find graphs demonstrating our findings in our written submission. The time is brief, so I will skip the statistics.

Over the 30-year period, workers in Quebec were two and a half times more likely to be on strike than workers in Ontario. The same goes for B.C. And over the same 30-year period, the duration of strikes in Quebec was 87% longer than the strikes in Ontario, while the duration of strikes in B.C. was twice as long.

There is one last statistic in respect to this. The number of strikes in Quebec per 1,000 workers was higher than in Ontario for every year, by about 90% on average, while in B.C. it was only 8%.

Fourth, and fundamentally—I am at the end of my presentation—the bill ignores the employer's right to maintain operations while in a strike or lockout position, to serve its customers, and thereby to maintain their loyalty and the business. There were two very important task forces 30 years apart, the Woods task force and the Sims task force, in 1996. Both came to the same conclusion: that replacement workers are necessary and should not be banned.

Why is it—and I ask you this question—that only one province other than Quebec, which is B.C., has seen fit to adopt this type of legislation in over 30 years?

In conclusion, the careful research balance and the code achieved in 1999 are not to be taken for granted and dismissed out of hand.

We urge members of this committee to reflect carefully and without haste on the potential ramifications of Bill C-257. The ban against replacement workers would destroy the current balance that is working in the interest of employers, unions, and the Canadian economy, most importantly. It will set back labour relations in this country significantly. Instead of looking to the future and building on the constructive relationships that there are, it looks to the past and the bitter disputes of former decades.

There is no need to alter what has worked well. I would urge you not to pass this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Alborino. We appreciate that.

We're going to move on to Mr. Yussuff and Mr. Georgetti.

[Ken Georgetti, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you.

Sir, I'm the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. And with me is our secretary-treasurer, Hassan Yussuff. We are elected to represent 3.2 million Canadian workers, and we speak for them.

I want to start off by telling you that, for the record, 911 is a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal jurisdiction. For the record, there have been two disputes in British Columbia involving the dispatchers of that essential service, and not one essential service disruption happened in British Columbia under that legislation.

I might also point out that less than one-quarter of one percent of the banking industry is unionized in this country, and to think that a dispute in that industry would have any effect on any customers is a real stretch of the truth.

I also want to point out that the number one country in the world for doing business last year was Ireland. It has anti-scab legislation.

I was the president of the British Columbia Federation of Labour when the last anti-scab legislation was brought into place in 1993. Let me tell you, Chair, that all of these arguments that you've been hearing and all this hyperbole that you're hearing, I heard in British Columbia. None of it happened. I don't think you should compare statistics across jurisdictions. Look at the graphs in B.C. and Quebec. The number and frequency of disputes stayed the same before and after anti-scab legislation. That's not the issue.

I do agree with only one thing that we heard from the labour minister. The issue is balance. But they want you to presume that balance exists now. Balance doesn't exist right now.

Dealing with multinational transnational corporations at the federal level, single Canadian citizens who are employees of those corporations do not have a balanced relationship with those companies.

The things that changed in British Columbia, which we had to look at afterwards, were the changes in the tone and the tenor of the dispute, especially afterwards when everybody--both the employees and the employer--had to go back and work for a common cause to make that company successful.

Our staff representatives and our affiliates and management in those companies said that the tone and tenor of those disputes helped labour relations after the dispute happened because people's jobs weren't threatened.

I want to also point out, just for the sake of the members, that the vast majority of injuries and incidents on the picket line were by the picketers themselves, not the strikebreakers. Usually the strikers themselves are the ones injured, sometimes very seriously. The RCMP liaison officers who dealt with us in British Columbia told us very clearly that their jobs were made much easier and more effective after we put anti-scab legislation in and that almost never are the RCMP called to picket-line disputes in British Columbia any more.

Both provinces, Quebec and B.C., I might add, with changes of government, with different political slants, have chosen, rightly, not to ever change or alter that legislation.

So what it does is put into the hands of Canadian citizens some equal balance to deal with the same employer.

The only other point I want to make is that I hope some of the intervenors talk about lockouts and not just strikes, because lots of times we are locked out by those employers; we're not necessarily on strike. So this is to put an element of fairness and balance back into the system.

Don't base your deliberations on dire specious predictions, quite frankly. Look at the facts and the two jurisdictions that have them. Within that jurisdiction, think about it on a federal level. It is in our interests to maintain essential services. The union movement has never been reluctant to provide the essential services when the case can be made. We think there should be a third-party arbiter for disputes regarding essential services, as exists in B.C. right now, where it works extremely well.

[Hassan Yussuff, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you for the opportunity to present before the committee.

The CLC brings together national and international unions, provincial and territorial federations of labour, 137 labour councils in every community. Our members, of course, work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, in all parts of Canada. So it's quite an extensive membership when you think of the broadness of the CLC.

Bill C-257 addresses a critical subject in federal labour law, one that has yet to be resolved despite years of discussion, research, and bitter experience. The issue concerns replacement workers and whether federal sector employers can use them during strikes or lockouts. In our view, the evidence shows replacement workers are bad for working families, bad for business, and bad for Canada. Replacement workers undermine core labour rights, encourage a few destructive employers—and I say few—and damage the productivity of Canada's economy.

The CLC holds strongly to the view that strikes and lockouts that are accompanied by the employer's use of replacement workers give rise to several negative and unnecessary strains on the labour-management relationship.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Yussuff, could you slow down a bit? The translators are having a hard time keeping up with you. I know we have to get a lot in within a short period of time, but perhaps you can have extra time.

[Hassan Yussuff]

These include prolonged and more bitter labour conflicts, more strikes and lockouts, increased picket-line confrontations and violence, less free and meaningful collective bargaining, problems that render resolution of the dispute more difficult.

The CLC and other trade unions have been working for years to bring balance and fairness into federal industrial relations by advocating a ban on replacement workers. We have, unfortunately, witnessed bitter disputes at Vidéotron in Quebec, Telus in B.C. and Alberta, Sécur in Quebec, Giant Mine up in the Northwest Territories, and of course, most recently, which my colleague Patty Ducharme will be speaking of, Ekati.

What is clear about all these disputes is that when workers are put in desperate situations by irresponsible employers, dangerous situations are almost assured. It is the role of government to avoid such scenarios by ensuring an even playing field between labour and management. This is a view most employers in the federal sector can also appreciate.

Ten years ago, a task force chaired by Andrew Sims, which has been referred to here this morning, published a report on reforming part one of the code. They heard from a range of witnesses and made a series of recommendations, but were divided on one major issue: the treatment of replacement workers under federal labour law.

It was also mentioned that Dr. Rodriguez Blouin offered a damning minority report of his own on the issue of replacement workers. Blouin's view on the issue was unmistakable. Here's a quote of what he said:

The use of replacement workers undermines the structural elements that ensure the internal cohesion of the collective bargaining system, by introducing a foreign body into a dispute between two clearly identified parties. It upsets the economic balance of power, compromises the freedom of expression of workers engaging in a strike or lockout, shifts the original neutral ground of the dispute, and leads eventually to a perception of exploitation of the individual.

Experience bears out Dr. Blouin's worst fears. In cases where disputes have occurred, employers need only to give the appearance that they are bargaining in good faith. After they meet this criterion, they are free to use replacement workers. In the cases of Telus, Ekati Mines, Vidéotron, Sécur, and Giant Mine, this is precisely what happened. So when a few renegade employers think otherwise, it is critical that rules exist to protect working families, our economy, and Canada's commitment to labour rights. Rules on replacement workers speak loudly to the priorities held in the federal labour laws.

Ultimately, the debate on Bill C-257 raises a larger question and cuts to the heart of what any labour relations system should be about: balance and fairness for all parties in a workplace relationship.

As Canada gears up for the 21st century, we must use an economic model that fits our values--or will it choose an economic model that enhances business productivity by ignoring core labour rights? Or will we follow the lead of enlightened countries and choose a model that emphasizes dynamic research, cutting-edge skills, and sincere commitment to labour rights?

We urge the federal government and the human resources committee to choose the latter, and of course a better course. Canada's federal rules on replacement workers continue to draw controversy, and will do so until the legitimate concerns of working families are addressed. When Bill C-257passed second reading in the House of Commons, Canada moved one step closer to joining those enlightened nations that value labour rights. It was a remarkable moment when politicians dispensed with partisan differences and joined forces to do the right thing.

In the interest of true balance and fairness and the rights of working families, we urge you to continue this course by amending the federal labour code to reflect the values widely held by Canadians.

In our brief we made two key points that were raised before the committee earlier. During the discussion between the CLC and MPs, all political parties and many MPs asked, how will the use of Bill C-257 comply with essential services in the Canada Labour Code?

The code sets out a clear responsibility for unions and employers on essential services to be maintained during a strike or lockout. Section 87.4 specifically makes reference to that. The point we want to make here is that the CLC maintains very strongly to this committee that Bill C-257 complies with the provisions of the Canada Labour Code in ensuring that essential services are maintained in the face of a strike or lockout. Further, we also go on to talk about the powers of the minister to investigate, where there is a breach in the legislation, who's best to be doing that. We recommend that the Canada Labour Relations Board should be charged with the responsibility of dealing with any breach in regard to the amended legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Yussuff, and thank you, Mr. Georgetti.

We're going to move to our last witness. Ms. Ducharme, you have seven minutes, please.

[Patricia Ducharme, National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I'm Patty Ducharme. I'm the national executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, a union representing 163,000 workers from coast to coast to coast here in Canada. I, like the two previous speakers, was also elected to represent the members I work with.

The PSAC fully supports a comprehensive brief presented by the CLC, of which we are an affiliated union.

Let me say at the outset that no union wants a strike, and no union member wants a strike. That's the reality, a reality steeped in an understanding that a strike—any strike—affects personal health and relationships, reduces family income, and in Canada all too often results in picket-line incidents that leave working people injured and worse. It is a reality steeped in an understanding that strikes cost the Canadian economy, inconvenience the consuming public, and undermine our competitive position.

That's the reality, a reality that cries out for action from parliamentarians and legislatures at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels. You as parliamentarians can't stop the frustration, lack of respect, and economic injustice that give rise to strike action, but you can level the playing field and take away the incentive for employers to prolong strike action and the violence it sometimes engenders.

Of the 160,000 workers the PSAC represents, fewer than 10,000 are certified under the Canada Labour Code. These PSAC members work in a host of locations, from airports to Canada Post to NavCanada and others, including the Vieux-Port de Montréal and the Ekati Diamond Mine owned by BHP Billiton, to name a few. We have endured a number of strikes at many of these work locations; that's just a reality for a union, but it's also true that some of these strikes were far more bitter than they really needed to be.

I am going to skip up to Ekati.

I want to talk about the strike earlier this year that our members who work at the Ekati Diamond Mine lived through. This is a recent example of how the lack of anti-scab legislation resulted in a long and bitter strike that deeply divided workers, communities, and families, and that continues to do so today. It is also an example of how the lack of anti-scab legislation allows multinational corporations to do business in Canada without respect for Canadian workers and their families.

On April 7, 2006, 400 PSAC members at the Ekati Diamond Mine went on strike against their employer, BHP, in order to secure a first collective agreement. PSAC members work as truck drivers, welders, process plant workers, crane operators, electricians, and other occupations in the mine, which is located close to the Arctic Circle. Working in the mine can be dangerous, and its northern location subjects workers to extreme winter working conditions. It is accessible only by plane; workers are flown in to the mine site for two-week shifts.

Negotiations for the first collective agreement dragged on for 24 months, with BHP dragging its heels throughout the negotiations before the union finally, as a last resort, took strike action. BHP had an advantage should a contract not be negotiated, and they knew it. The main issues were wages, job security, and vacation leave.

The strike lasted almost 12 weeks. It resulted in picket-line injuries and deeply bitter divisions among the workers, their families, and the community. While the strike did not result in a great tragedy such as the Giant Mine disaster earlier referred to, to this day it continues to divide families and the community. The lack of anti-scab legislation prolonged the Ekati strike and entrenched in the workplace and in the community a deep sense of betrayal and animosity that will no doubt take years to heal.

Given the high levels of unemployment across the north, the opening of Ekati was a welcome opportunity. It attracted a workforce primarily from Edmonton, from Yellowknife, and from three smaller communities in the Northwest Territories: Fort Simpson, Hay River, and Rae-Edzo.

Aboriginal leaders and elders also welcomed the opening of Ekati, which was on land covered under Treaties 8 and 11. Impact benefit agreements, or IBAs, were signed with BHP; although confidential, IBAs essentially secure support for the mine operations by committing to employ aboriginal workers and by providing monetary benefits to the aboriginal communities.

BHP was recognized this year as a top 100 company in Canada. This Australian-based conglomerate is the largest mining company in the world. It saw profits of $7.5 billion last year. It's well known that BHP was instrumental in a successful effort to change Australian labour legislation, weakening collective labour rights.

Their approach to staffing when the mine first opened was to negotiate individual and arbitrary agreements with each worker without a standard classification or approach ensuring equitable compensation. We knew that negotiating a first collective agreement with a notoriously anti-union multinational corporation would prove challenging, but anti-scab legislation would have brought some balance to that situation.

As part of its public relations strategy, BHP publicly maintained that it would not use replacement workers. We know that not to be the case. During the strike BHP management phoned striking workers at home, asking them to cross the picket line and return to work. They also offered to pay any fines the union might impose on those union members who agreed to cross the picket line and work. Unfortunately, some of them did.

Contractors at the mine site also performed work of the bargaining unit during the strike. Clearly, BHP could easily afford to reach a fair first collective agreement with its workers, yet it was determined not to do so from the onset.

While Bill C-257 does not address all of our issues, all members of Parliament should understand that this strike could definitely have been shorter had there been proactive anti-scab legislation, legislation that would have helped this community see this situation resolved sooner and more quickly so that the divide that currently exists in that northern community would not be so deep.

Thank you again for allowing me to make this presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Ducharme.

We're now going to start our first round of questioning with Mr. Coderre. Seven minutes, please.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for my tardiness. Since I knew what the minister was going to say, that he was going to give us the same old line and use the same old scare tactics, I thought I should prepare myself for the other witnesses.

Of course, I'm still happy to be here, but in the meantime, I had an opportunity to speak to members of the press about the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code respecting workplace balance.

My first question is directed to Mr. Brazier, Mr. Côté and Mr. Alborino. As legislators, our role is to ensure that there is justice and an appearance of justice. When we conduct a study, we must explain why we are taking this initiative and identify our objectives.

Clearly, the objective in seeking to amend the Canada Labour Code is to achieve balance. No one benefits when the system is defrauded and money is lost. As consumers, we want services, but we also want assurances that workers are operating in a decent environment. You make a great deal of money, but that's largely because workers are part of your team. They represent a strength and value added and they are the reason why your businesses are doing well.

Can you explain to me why you feel it would be bad for your business not to have replacement workers outside Quebec?

Please do not resort to the same scare tactics the minister used earlier, namely the argument that everything would be paralyzed, that this would herald the end of the world, the apocalypse. What's wrong with wanting to negotiate in a healthy environment? As a consumer, I have no desire to be at the mercy of either unions or employers. Obviously, labour disputes may arise. That's a healthy thing. We are not communists. Market law and negotiations rule. It's normal to have labour conflicts.

Explain to me why replacement workers should be allowed? Lock-outs can also cause some damage. Employees can avail themselves of their right to strike, but you can lock out your employees. Explain to me the advantages of allowing replacement workers outside Quebec and British Columbia.

Don't answer me by quoting figures. Answer the question honestly.

[Santo Alborino]

I won't quote any figures. I'll give you some concrete examples involving real people. Let me relate to you an experience I had in my organization where people showed up for work every day. We had a branch in Fermont and employees were represented by an union with which we had been on good terms for many years. We'd never had any problems and relations were good. The branch was the only financial institution in the town of Fermont. It served mine workers, all business owners, employees and other clients.

You stated that an employer had the right to lock out workers. In this particular instance—and I'm not saying that this is always the case—the union decided to go on strike and notified us accordingly. To protect our business, since it was the town's only financial institution and several hundred of the mine's employees used our services, we decided to lock out our employees. However, we did so to protect our business.

You can't tell me that the business didn't suffer. Quite the contrary, in fact. You talk about replacement workers, but we don't mean that everyone should be replaced. We bring in workers to provide essential services such as payroll services for the mine's employees, to handle transactions for business owners...

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

If I could just interrupt you for a moment, Mr. Alborino, that is precisely why I maintain that this bill gives managers the power and ability to do the work, just like in Quebec. Instead of bringing in replacement workers, a manager takes over the duties. In the meantime, efforts are made to settle the strike or lock-out.

Where is the problem then?

[Santo Alborino]

I submit that it's impossible in all cases for managers to do the work. It's inconceivable to think that in certain circumstances, managers can replace workers with specialized skills.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Then why does it work in Quebec? Are we different because Quebec was declared a nation? Is that the problem?

British Columbia is poised to achieve nationhood as well.

[Santo Alborino]

Apparently it's working, but there is no proof. In our opinion, there is no tangible evidence that this bill will make a difference.

Besides, statistics—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I am not pro-union. In fact, FTQ members throw eggs at me during my election campaigns. I am not at the mercy of the unions. However, I am in favour of justice and fairness.

This law has been on the books in Quebec for 30 years. We're hearing that this law will make investment more difficult, that disaster will befall us. However, it's working very well in Quebec. Managers are doing the job very well.

However, when a strike drags on for 10 months in Fermont or at Vidéotron, families suffer. Managers must be able to ensure essential services. I'm speaking to you as a consumer. Let me tell you that this bill will ensure some balance in the quest for a resolution.

So then, what's the problem?

[Santo Alborino]

Basically, what you're saying is that this approach works in Quebec.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Precisely.

Do you not agree with me?

[Santo Alborino]

The statistics that we've presented to you would indicate that the opposite is true.