Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have my own statistics.

[Santo Alborino]

Statistics can be used to make some plausible arguments for either approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

That's all the time we have for this round. We're going to move to our next questioner.

You have seven minutes, Ms. Lavallée.

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

Indeed, it's really not enough time to cover such an important topic as this, but nevertheless, we can get into the specifics. Had you testified before the legislative committee on Bill C-2, you would have had only two minutes, not seven.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Coderre has left already. I wanted to tell him that he missed a good speech by the minister who rose in the House to solemnly proclaim that fewer investments are made in those provinces that have anti-replacement worker legislation in place.

He based his comments on studies that had been done, one by the Fraser Institute and another by the Institut économique de Montréal. In fact, the two studies are one and the same, authored by the same person. Ultimately, we demonstrated to him—even though he stood firmly by the findings—that the study made no sense because it was based on data collected between 1963 and 1995. Therefore, the data used was no longer relevant. Furthermore, the study was based on surveys of large companies, not SMEs which are the heart and soul of Quebec's economy. We managed to get him to change his opinion, because, rather suprisingly, he didn't bring the subject up again this morning.

For the past two or three days, he has been resorting to scare tactics and you're there right along with him, Mr. Alborino and Mr. Brazier. I'm surprised. You use expressions such as “total paralysis” and “everything is essential”. You're afraid components of the system will break down, including the 911 emergency service.

The minister spoke to us about the 911 service. I know that in Quebec, 911 service is under municipal control. In Longueuil where I reside, the municipal police are responsible for 911. This service does not come under federal jurisdiction. Mr. Georgetti has just advised us that in the other provinces, 911 service is a provincial responsibility. Therefore, this service will not be affected by this bill.

Moreover, Mr. Alborino, you state, and I quote, that “the ability to maintain at least a minimum level of service is critical to maintaining the integrity of Canada's national infrastructure”.

Excellent! In fact, you will find that Bill C-257 does provide the ability to maintain a minimum level of service, in that it allows managers to replace workers. This is stated in the proposed subclause (2.2)a), which I can read to you, if you like. Managers can in fact replace striking workers. This is an honest, balanced way of doing things.

We witnessed a situation like this two years when SAQ employees were on strike. Imagine that, SAQ workers on strike during the holiday season. Quebeckers managed to get by because management replaced striking workers. Everything went smoothly. The strike lasted three months. Any strike is always too long, but in the final analysis, we managed and the same is true of all sectors of society.

Moreover, essential government services legislation is on the books. Workplace balance has been achieved in Quebec for provincially regulated workers. That balance is achieved when during a labour dispute, employers see their productivity fall substantially, while employees are deprived of their income. That balance helps to bring both parties to the bargaining table in the hope of resolving the dispute quickly. If the business continues to offer a full range of services, what incentive is there for the employer to sit down with union officials and to negotiate? There is no incentive, because it's business as usual for the employer.

When management must fill in for unionized employees, they will put enough pressure on the employer to meet with the union and negotiate properly.

That said, I have a question for Mr. Georgetti. The minister stated -- and he had said the same thing in previous testimony before the committee -- that balance is achieved when the employer can continue to produce. Moreover, in his excellent analysis done in 1999, Mr. Rodrigue Blouin referred to replacement workers as intruders, as bulls in a china shop, so to speak.They become a third party in the negotiations which normally, should involve only two parties, namely management and the union.

I'd like to get the CLC's opinion on this matter. What do you consider to be a balanced approach to negotiating in this instance?

[Ken Georgetti]

The whole purpose of a strike and/or lockout is that it's an economic sanction to move the party to resolve a dispute. Our experience is that if employers or employees feel no economic pressure, then the dispute will linger and carry on. But the fact of the matter is that it would be like paying full wages to employees when they're on strike; it would be pretty hard to get them to settle the contract.

For the employer it's the same experience. As they continue to operate, the economic sanction does not work, and therefore the balance is unequal. As the legislation in B.C. was put in, our experience was that it made the parties more equal in terms of the bargaining table and in terms of the dispute itself.

I have to continue to emphasize this: our staff representatives who actually do the on-the-ground bargaining say that labour relations got better after that legislation, because when employees return to work, animosity doesn't exist. If a lockout is scabbed, the strikers feel as though their jobs are being stolen away from them by their employer. Sometimes the reaction is aggressive. People get hurt—that's one thing—and also the employer gets hurt at the end of the day because productivity lags afterwards. You want people to go back to work with a good feeling, that they were equal, that they got a fair settlement, so that productivity can increase and go forward.

Let's stress this again: 98% of all the collective bargaining we do in Canada resolves in a settlement. We are very productive in the industries we work in. The 3% that go to dispute need to be resolved quickly and efficiently. We think this restores a lot more balance to Canadian citizens, particularly when dealing with these huge multinational companies that have really no regard for Canadian rights or our citizenship rights: that's your job.

Canadian citizens are telling us, through our mechanisms, that where we have it, it works, and where we don't have it, they want it. These are Canadian citizens talking to you. That's why you get visited by your constituent. Your citizens want it.

Business might not like it, but my experience with them is that they adapt very well to the conditions that they have to work in. They do a good job in Iceland and in France, and in other jurisdictions in South Korea where they have it. They'll do a good job in Canada too when they have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Madame Lavallée, you're over your seven minutes.

We're going to move to Ms. Davies for seven minutes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today and for offering us your opinions.

I want to come back to this question of essential services. What mechanisms are in place, and what do we need to look at? The minister this morning left us with the impression that if we adopt this bill, somehow we're going to have economic chaos in this country; the bill will have caused that. I really don't think that's the reality. I think the labour representatives today have given us a very good sense of the reality of actually what takes place with this kind of legislation that actually improves the labour relations climate.

It seems to me that employers have two mechanisms they can use when there is a strike and if they aren't able to bring in replacement workers. One is the use of managers. There is that provision in this bill. The other is the question of essential services.

Mr. Georgetti, you flagged, and Mr. Yussuff, you flagged in your brief, that the current provision under the Canada Labour Code should be part of this bill, that in fact this bill should be compatible with that. I just wonder what experience you've had with your affiliates in using that section. Right now the employer or the union can use, I think, section 87.4. If they can't come to an agreement themselves, they can go to the board. The board can intervene and can bring about the designation of what essential services there are. So there is a third party that intervenes.

First of all, do you consider that an adequate process? I asked the minister if he thought that should be changed. He didn't give any response to that, so I can only assume that he believes it to be adequate. I'd like to know if you think it's adequate as it is.

Secondly, I just want to say that in terms of the Ekati labour dispute, I was up there, I visited the workers, and I can absolutely say that the fact that we didn't have this kind of legislation really added to the animosity and to the difficulty those workers faced there. I think the employer knew that; they knew how far they could go because there wasn't any restriction on them.

Again, perhaps you would like to give a response on whether you think the provisions in the existing code are adequate to deal with essential services.

[Hassan Yussuff]

In regard to the current Canada Labour Code, part I, currently section 87.4 deals with essential service provision. There are two important criteria in order to get a designation as an essential service. One, of course, is public health and safety. It's not an ambiguous definition; it's a very clear definition.

In the context of Bill C-257, we're making the argument that the bill should be compatible with essential service provision. It is there for a reason. It establishes the fact that you need to have it there, and we think they should be compatible.

We don't think there's a conflict, but again, the committee can get some legal interpretation if there's a conflict. We should err on the side of caution, of course, and ensure that section 87.4 is not compromised as a result of this bill.

In addition to that, Bill C-257 added a provision that is not currently in the Canada Labour Code, part I. It is that if there is a dispute, replacement workers would not be able to cross the picket line.

It also provides for management to continue to perform their responsibilities in the context of the workplace, and I think that's an added provision. We think it's critical that the bill comply with section 87.4.

In every instance in which our affiliates have had to go before the board to deal with the elements of essential services or, more importantly, when the employer has raised it as a concern, they have actually worked it out and reached an agreement that has satisfied both parties, and when they couldn't have done so, they've gone before the board. We've always seen the board jurisdiction in dealing with this as adequate and fair. It's their job to determine whether the parties making the representation that it should be declared an essential service actually have a legitimate argument as defined under the current law.

We have always felt the board is balanced and fair, so if the parties can't resolve it, I think legitimately it should be the board that makes that designation at the end of the day. We think it's an essential part of the changes that should be applied to Bill C-257.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I have a brief follow-up to both of you. It seems to me that then speed would be of the essence. When a dispute has taken place and there's no agreement between the union and the employer, and therefore either party does go to the board, it would be really important to have a hearing that happens pretty quickly.

What is the current situation? Is it something we may need to address? I've heard there can be backlogs. Maybe Patty Ducharme would like to answer as well, because I'm sure you have experience with that.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Long before the parties get to giving notice of either a strike or a lockout, once you've given notice to bargain, you have to deal with the question of essential services. It is not at the last minute.

Long before the parties will get into the context of a dispute or a lockout, they have to establish the procedure. It's not a last-minute thing. It's determined long before that because of the way it's structured in the legislation. It would not be the parties giving notice to go on strike today and then lockouts and then they are going before the board. The board has the provision. If the Canadian Industrial Relations Board needs adequate resources to commit to its responsibility, then it's the role of Parliament to give it those necessary resources. It is like the police force; if you're not going to fund them, don't expect them to carry out the investigation in regard to their responsibilities.

I think it's critical that there be a recognition that the board has a responsibility. There has never been a case made that the board has not fulfilled its responsibility in regard to the essential service provision when it's been asked to do so.

[Ken Georgetti]

Here is a small point: in British Columbia, the federation there will not sanction a picket line unless essential-service designations are agreed to or sanctioned by the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay. Can Ms. Ducharme—?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You've got 15 seconds.

[Patricia Ducharme]

I was just going to say that it's our practice, regardless of the legislation and whether it's the code or the public sector, to negotiate our essential services agreements well in advance, but it is always helpful when there is a dispute.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's something known in advance, before your—

[Patricia Ducharme]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Davies.

We are going to move now to the final questioner of this round, Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison. If I have the time, I would like to share with Ms. Yelich too; I know she has some questions.

I have a few comments. I appreciate all the witnesses coming here today.

I heard mention of Ireland as being a model. I think Mr. Georgetti mentioned it. Their success, I would suggest, obviously has more to do with the lower corporate tax rate. I am sure Mr. Georgetti is a fan of that, and hopefully we'll hear that as a deposition before finance at some point.

Also, I heard reference to 911 as being provincial. I would add that telecommunications is federal, so it is important that we don't honestly forget to mention that.

I also note that I heard some concern over violence. Obviously, Canadians are very peaceful, so I think that argument can be misleading. If there were any very remote chance of violence in this atmosphere, I think there might be a greater likelihood of violence if people couldn't get their paycheques and couldn't pay their mortgages because of work stoppages in banks via telecommunications, if we inhibited the telecommunications and their ability to do their job; or if grain growers couldn't use the trains and couldn't get their product on the trains. The violence argument, I think, is not a great concern. I think it is more a bit of fearmongering than anything else.

My question would be for the CBA. Could the CBA could let me know if they have done any research on this issue? Also, could they give me some examples of the impact Bill C-257 would cause and why it is so important for the CBA to present their case for us today?

As an Ontario MP, I too am very concerned about this. I saw the devastation that similar legislation caused in Ontario between 1993 and 1995. Obviously it would be a big decision for Parliament to flip-flop on this after they said no a mere two years ago, with very well-researched members like Mr. Regan, who voted against, or the newly minted Liberal leader. I think it would be very important that if such a radical decision were taken, it would have to be for a very grave reason. Maybe the CBA can expound for us what their feelings are on this very important proposed legislation.

[Normand Côté, Director General, Employee Relations, BMO Financial Group, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you very much.

The issue here is all about the impact it would have on consumers through the banks. It is all about communication channels. That's the key here.

We are not directly impacted, from a replacement workers perspective, because as Mr. Georgetti pointed out, we only have less than one quarter of 1% of our workforce unionized.

However, if replacement workers are banned in telecommunication companies, that is where the impact would be. As you rightly pointed out, getting to your money is key. If we can't transfer money, or if we can't get to our money—Every single one of us is a customer somewhere. If it's not my bank, it's in Mr. Alborino's bank, or anywhere else for that matter. It's all about the possibility of not being able to transfer the money or get access to our money.

That's the key here. It's not the direct impact on the banks from the replacement workers point of view. It's the non-access to all the financial means and the financial investments that we all have in the banks or in the banking industry. It's for the consumers more than for the banks.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Here's a quick question for FETCO. I'm not sure whether you've looked at your Ontario or Quebec branches, but on the basis of the number of person-days lost per 1,000 employees in Ontario and Quebec for the last five years, there's been more labour peace in Ontario without this legislation than there is in Quebec with this legislation.

We are looking at a model that works. It appears to be working much for effectively in Ontario without it. I am wondering whether you could comment, with any suggestions or advice for us on why it's working so much better in a province without this legislation, in terms of creating labour peace.

[Don Brazier]

First of all, I don't believe the data show anything. I think this is a classic example of being able to use data to show whatever you want.

I started to look at the data published by the Quebec labour department--which does break down federal and provincial--and came to the conclusion that you couldn't come to any conclusion, which is the same conclusion Mr. Blouin came to. I don't think having replacement workers one way or another is relevant to the number of strikes, the frequency of strikes, or the man-days lost.

I think many other factors determine whether you're going to have a stable labour relations climate. It could be the issues the employer and the union have to deal with. It could be the number of unions in the bargaining place. It could be the relationship over the years. There are many factors that go into determining whether a labour relationship is going to be a stable or an unstable one. I'm not going to suggest out of hand that the existence or lack of existence of replacement workers is not a factor; it can be a factor, but it's certainly not the sole factor, and I doubt very much, based on the data, that it's an overriding factor.

When you look, the industries in Quebec are more comparable with the industries in Ontario and B.C. than they are with the federal jurisdiction, so that makes the more sensible comparison.

Also, I would say the data need a lot of interpretation. The raw data, in my opinion, can be a bit misleading. There were 163 strikes in Quebec last year; that sounds like Lord knows what the devil was going on in Quebec. Part of that is because HRSDC counted a whole pile of what I will call rotating or selective strikes in the public service as separate strikes. If you look at 163 strikes in Quebec and five strikes under federal jurisdiction--the comparable figure--you'd say, “My God, look at that. There's nobody working in Quebec.”

That's the problem with these data. They require some interpretation. As a matter of fact—

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I'm running out of time. Could I get additional information from the CBA on this very same comment? I don't think it's just the data. For the last five years in a row, the data show the same trend: Ontario has relative labour peace compared to Quebec in terms of the number of days lost per 1,000 employees in the private sector.

Could the CBA comment to us on why there's been such a stark difference for the last five years consecutively in the province of Ontario without this legislation?

[Normand Côté]

That's why we looked at 30 years in the charts we tabled, and that we will table in our written submission. It was so we did not look at one single year, and even the last five years support what you just said. As Mr. Coderre said, it has been working in Quebec for 30 years, so are we stupid or what? That's not the point here.

The point is that it has been working in the federal legislation for 30 years, and probably even better. To say it's not working in Quebec--it may very well be working in Quebec, but statistics show it has been working for 30 years or more in the federal legislation, and even better. That's an argument we can't lose sight of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

We're going to move on to our second round and Ms. Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think I agree with Mr. Brazier that we can get caught up with statistics, as opposed to looking at the broader picture, which is what we as legislators are expected to look at.

I understand from the bankers that because the unionized percentage of their workers is so small, their main concern with this bill has to do with the potential of strikes among telecommunications workers, which would slow down or stop certain banking and payment activities. I want to ask Mr. Georgetti about the unionization level among telecommunications workers and if he has any statistics on that for us--well, not statistics, but any facts about that.

Going back to the basic issue of fairness and balance, some people here have claimed there is balance based upon the current legislation; Mr. Georgetti said the most interesting thing this morning, when he said there is no balance.

I'd like to know if you know, or if you could find out for us, how the telecommunications workers so essential to the banking industry have done in their collective bargaining of late. In other words, do you have any comparative figures about the profits being made by telecommunications industries or corporations within that sector compared to the wage increases that have been won by the telecommunications workers? It seems to me that our essential question is that if the economy is booming and corporations are making ever-increasing profits, are those profits being shared fairly with the workers who do the work to create those profits?

I want to get back to that basic question between labour and management, because I think it will lead us to a conclusion about how much interference the current legislation needs. Does it need an amendment, or does it need a whole new bill like this one?

I'm going to invite Mr. Georgetti to speak to that.