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. This meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. I appreciate everyone's patience. We've been a little late this morning.

The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations. There will be two rounds of questioning. There will be one round of seven minutes, followed by an additional round of five minutes.

I want to remind everyone to put all their questions through me as the chair. I'm going to start with Mr. Anders.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

I can always ask a question later, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's right. We're going to start with our first round. I'm going to start over on my right-hand side.

Mr. Gervais, you have seven minutes, sir.

[Mario Gervais, President, Quebec Division, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

I would like to thank you for giving us an opportunity to speak to you about the anti-strikebreaker legislation.

I would like to introduce my colleague, Jacques Dénommé, the Vice-President of the Communications Division at CUPE in Quebec. Since 1974, Mr. Dénommé has been working at Vidéotron, which bought out Cablevision in the 1980s. He is the union representative and the Vice-President of the Communications Division since the end of the 1980s. So he has been involved in the lives of Vidéotron workers and people employed in the communications division as a member and as a shop steward.

My name is Mario Gervais and I am the General Vice-President of the Canadian Union of Public Employers in Quebec. CUPE has 500,000 members, 100,000 of whom are in Quebec. CUPE represents municipal workers and employee in the health, energy, communications, education and ground transportation sectors. Approximately 10,000 members in Quebec work under the federal code in the areas of communications, value shipment service, marine transportation, and so on.

Our objective is to make Members of Parliament aware about the importance of anti-strikebreaker legislation for workers, and for the company, for workers in all sectors. It is also important to emphasize how such a piece of legislation improves labour relations for all concerned.

I have lived with anti-strikebreaker legislation as an employee and as union representative at Hydro-Québec. For his part, Jacques experienced the situation as an employee and as the union representative at Vidéotron. I will turn the floor over to him. He will be able to speak about this in much greater detail.

[Jacques Dénommé, Vice-President, Communications Sector, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

My name is Jacques Dénommé and I am the Vice-President of the Communications Division at CUPE-Québec. Our division includes many of the workers who come under federal jurisdiction within CUPE. We represent people who work for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, TVA, Global, TQS, the NFB, Vidéotron, Cogeco, and so on. So we are very much involved as employees who come under the federal labour code.

This morning, I want to speak to you more as a worker and union representative at Vidéotron. In this capacity, I have been involved in six or seven rounds of bargaining as a member of the executive, and during my time, most of these negotiations had a good outcome. They produced positive results for the workers and for the company.

However, there were two difficult periods which led to disputes. In the early 1990s there were two labour disputes, one involving a union whose certification had not been merged with ours at the time. One year later, there was another labour dispute having to do with our certification.

I would like to describe the context for you. This was a key period in cable television—it was the end of what was described as the monopoly. The company had to make some fairly significant adjustments, and as a result bargaining became quite difficult. Some significant changes had to be made in the way in which the work was organized, and people had to work within that context. At the same time, we had to ensure that the transition would occur in the context of acceptable job security for the members of our union. There was one difficult round of bargaining that led to a labour dispute.

This labour dispute, which lasted nine weeks, ultimately produced a good result. The power struggle was about economic considerations for both the company and the workers. Finally, some wisdom was displayed and people started to speak together about finding solutions that would be attractive to the company and to the employees as well. We continued along these lines and managed to develop productive, positive labour relations. It did take some time. Any labour dispute results in some bad mood for some time, that is to be expected. But at least we were able to build some excellent labour relations. The workers felt they were involved in the development of the company. Their contribution and their appreciation were very clear.

It was a very different matter at the time of the 2002 dispute, with which everyone is familiar. This dispute lasted close to a year and was incredibly bitter. The difference between these two strikes involved the use of strikebreakers.

In the first case, there were no strikebreakers. The company operated using its non-unionized employees and its management staff. We know that labour disputes are never easy for those who stay inside, for those who are outside, and also for clients. However, within this power struggle, the two sides come to a better understanding and to improved dialogue.

During the 2002 dispute, there were many strikebreakers, and they crossed the picket lines with their little fingers raised. There was provocation on all sides and clashes between strikebreakers and our employees. There was so much bitterness. Even after four years, there is still so much bad blood that we are having trouble getting over this and restoring more harmonious labour relations. Despite our efforts to turn the page and to move forward, the bitterness remains, so much so that we wonder how we will get through the upcoming negotiations. I think the reason for this needs to be considered.

The return to work after a labour dispute is another important consideration. Imagine workers who have been on the picket line every day and the people crossing their lines and giving them the finger and driving out with their truck to do their job, etc. Once the dispute is over, when these people go back to work, the employer hires a few of the strike breakers who then become their colleagues. They have to share the same premises with these people. That makes for an unbearable atmosphere within the company I do not think it is productive for anyone.

Moreover, when these workers come back, they get all the negative feedback from clients who suffered for a year because of the dispute. People were really furious with the company and vented their frustration at the expense of the employees who were coming back to work. So there was double frustration.

I think it took some time before any trust between clients and the company was restored. Furthermore, management and the employees of the company are still working on building that today. So I do not think our system benefits at all from an experience of this type.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move over to Mr. Forder for seven minutes, please.

[Paul Forder, Director, Government Relations, Canadian Auto Workers Union]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to apologize for only having our presentation in English. Our translator couldn't get it done last night. I apologize to the members. We can get it translated quickly and will send it to the clerk.

I've also left for you a copy of a DVD that is 90 seconds long. It will show that, on June 24, 2002, one of our members was run down by a driver of a vehicle employed by London Protection International security services and Navistar, a truck plant in Chatham, Ontario. You will see something that's very violent and very painful. You will see a truck slam into a group of workers who were doing nothing but assembling peacefully.

When we talk about violence, this is not something that is fear mongering. This is reality. Our member has had twenty operations. He's been off work ever since. He's a young man with several children, and he's lucky to be alive. These are the kinds of tensions that mount when replacement workers are brought in, and also when firms are hired to bring in replacement workers.

I'd ask you to go on the website of the London Protection International security services. To all of you, as members of Parliament, as responsible legislators, not one of you would dare hire one of the people they depict on their website. They are large. They are designed to intimidate. They are military types. It's the kind of service that can only debase good labour relations in Ontario.

We thank the committee for taking this bill to this level after second reading, and we are appreciative of the Bloc's private member's bill, the total support of the NDP, the large support from the Liberals, and support from 21 Conservative MPs. This is very important to move to another stage of development in orderly labour relations in Canada. If we can eliminate impediments to free collective bargaining, then we will have done a good job and you will have done a good job. And if we can spare one injury such as the one you will see on this DVD—and I hope all of the members will take 90 seconds to view it—then you will have done a very good job, for that reason, in and of itself.

We represent 265,000 workers across Canada in the Canadian Auto Workers. Our president, Buzz Hargrove, would have been here, but he just returned from China yesterday and quite frankly couldn't make it to this important event. We have 30,000 members whom we represent in the federal sector, specifically in the interprovincial transportation sector. We represent 11,000 workers in the rail industry; 13,000 in the airline sector; 4,000 in the in-road transportation industries; and approximately 2,000 in marine transportation industries. All of those sectors, you can imagine, couldn't be run by replacement workers. Anybody who thinks they could be is just deceiving themselves.

The CAW applauds the introduction of this legislation and hopes all the parties will continue to support it and see it through to its conclusion, to final reading and royal assent.

Our view is that the evidence is clear. When replacement workers and strike breakers are used during strikes and lockouts, labour disputes last longer. I'm not going to get into an argument about the numbers, because numbers can be used to make any point you want. But they don't take into account the number of contracts that come due in any particular year and the fact that the large employers and large numbers can often skew numbers for people who are trying to ascertain whether a particular piece of legislation is having the desired impact.

We know there are real injuries when there are conflicts and when people are viewed as having their job taken away from them because they exercise their legal right to strike. I've asked the legislators I've met if they support, in a democratic society, free collective bargaining and the right to strike. Everyone says yes. So I then say they have to logically follow that to a conclusion and not support a law that denies a person justice because they opted to partake of the right to strike in a democratic society. So you opt to strike, but because of that, you now have another law that comes in and removes possibly your right to be re-employed in that workplace. That is absolutely nonsensical, and it doesn't flow in the generous and caring society that we in Canada have.

Contrary to the rhetoric used by opponents of the proposed legislation, the ban on replacement workers will not inflate labour costs or drive away investment. In fact, labour disputes are not shortened but prolonged by the practice of using replacement workers, which often generates a lingering animosity and can infect a workplace for years afterward with a poisoned environment. It wouldn't be very pleasant for you to work in Parliament in a poisoned atmosphere--well, sometimes there is a poisoned atmosphere. It would be better if there weren't such a poisoned atmosphere, as we try to focus on what's critically important to Canadians. You would have a better work environment as well. Maybe that's not a good example.

The examples we have in Canada--13 years in B.C., 29-plus years in Quebec, with all different parties in power--say a lot about that legislation remaining intact and doing what it was designed to do.

Finally, a ban on the use of replacement workers is necessary to redress the imbalance that we now see in the bargaining power between labour and management. It is essential to have fair and effective collective bargaining by having an equal table. Allowing employers to resort to the use of replacement workers or even the threat of it during a labour dispute gives the employer an unfair advantage at the bargaining table and renders meaningless the workers' right to strike. The right to strike is fundamental to the freedom of association, as is the right to organize and bargain collectively, and both are enshrined in the Canada Labour Code. It ensures balance and fairness in collective bargaining. A ban on the use of replacement workers during the course of a labour dispute will further the objectives of the code and remove obstacles to meaningful bargaining to permit the parties to reach a prompt and fair negotiated settlement.

The preamble of the code refers specifically to Canada's international obligations pursuant to convention number 87 of the International Labour Organization concerning the freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. Pursuant to this convention, workers have the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, and the right to withhold their services in the event that collective bargaining negotiations fail. The use of replacement workers during labour disputes undermines those fundamental labour rights. Workers who do not strike or who are locked out are discouraged from exercising their rights and participating in the strike when they are faced with the risk of losing their jobs. To workers, to break a strike is contrary to the spirit of the code and Canada's international obligations.

The argument that the use of replacement workers can be justified on the basis of democratic principles in the context of collective bargaining was rejected by one famous Canadian as disingenuous:

Justifying scabs in the name of the freedom of individual workers is the act of ignorance, and for the most part of hypocrisy...just as it is impossible for a group of stockholders to set themselves up as “lockout breakers” by the partial restoration of operations in the factory where the company is having a lockout, so it should be impossible for a group of workers to assure the operation of a factory as long as a strike is in progress there.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, The Asbestos Strike,1956.

In the interests of time, Mr. Chair, I'm going to skip to a conclusion.

I suggest that if we can remove elements of confrontation between management and labour, we'll all be happier for it. Keep in mind, we settle 97% of all agreements without strikes or lockouts. In some jurisdictions it's 98%. We are dealing with a very minute number of disputes, not that they are not important, not that they don't get the publicity in the paper. It is really important to the fundamental democratic principles of workers in a democratic society that we shouldn't be alarmed by Chicken Littles, such as what the Minister of Labour did on the last vote when this private member's bill came. All of a sudden, to hear what he said today is quite unbelievable, I must admit, and I think it's quite alarming to suggest that somehow there is economic chaos in our midst. That is a little bit of a Chicken Little, and it should be put in the proper context.

In conclusion, we thank the committee. We believe strongly that this will provide the kind of orderly, balanced labour relations that are required to make more amicable settlements within the federal jurisdiction, and we salute you for taking this challenge forward. Passing this bill is the right thing to do, and we are pleased the proposed legislation has won the support of all parties in the House today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Forder.

Now we're going to move over to Mr. Whyte. It's your turn to present.

[Garth Whyte, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to introduce my colleague, Corinne Pohlmann, who's our director of national affairs. She'll be helping with the questions and answers.

I want to talk about George. George is a CFIB member who owns a small regional airline that services northern communities. He's not nearly as big as Air Canada or WestJet, but his service is critical to the northern communities he services. His small planes bring supplies and offers travel connections among those communities that the big airlines don't serve. During part of the year, his services are the only link between those northern communities and the outside world. George has a union workforce. He knows each employee. He is an important employer in his community and he is federally regulated. George's company has never experienced a strike--yet.

I want to ask this committee to consider this question. How does Bill C-257, which restricts replacement workers, help George and his northern airline? How will this legislation impact on thousands of small and medium-sized businesses in sectors such as trucking, communications, and airlines that, like George, are important to their community and are federally regulated?

We've heard from powerful union leaders that their members need protection from big, federally regulated companies. What protection do smaller employers like George's company have from powerful, big unions? What protection do his employees have who may disagree with the strike action supported by a big union based out of Toronto or Montreal? Big unions claim they need this legislation to protect themselves from big business, but who will stand up and protect small business from big unions?

Actually, this bill is double jeopardy for smaller business employers like George. His business will be hit directly if there's a strike, and it can be hurt indirectly by a strike or a lockout between a major, federally regulated business and a big union. That provides an important service to his business, and his business depends on it. Big businesses have the ability to survive a strike that would shut down ports, trucking, railways, or the postal service, but it is small businesses that risk being put out of business when these services grind to a halt.

The impact of this bill will hurt small employers across the country. Without replacement workers, the farmer who relies on exports will not ship grain. Small retailers who rely on imports will have empty shelves, and products will not reach the customer through distribution networks like Canada Post.

When asked about whether replacement workers should be restricted in federally regulated businesses, 84% of the 10,000 small business respondents said no. I'd like some other people to bring some hard evidence. I've heard anecdotes. That's what our membership is saying.

This bill has made our members angry and afraid. Our members remember when the port of Vancouver was shut down. The grain shipments and exports were tied up for weeks. The cost to B.C. business was over $75 million per day, but the impact was felt across Canada. Our members remember the Canada Post strike in 1999, when a small business, on average, lost $240 per day in higher delivery costs, lost sales, and delayed payments. It doesn't sound like a lot; however, the losses translated to more than $200 million per day within Canada's small and medium-sized business community.

The Liberal government was forced to legislate CUPW employees back to work. Is that the goal of this bill, to force governments to legislate union workers back to work? Even the threat of this happening can have serious long-term impacts on business growth, job creation, and economic development. How does this bill improve Canada's competitiveness?

All four federal parties have recognized the importance of small business to job creation, to their local communities, and to Canada's overall economic success. During the past two elections, all federal parties--the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals, and the Conservatives--endorsed policies that would help small business grow and create jobs. Why? Because they know that small and medium-sized enterprises account for 60% of total employment and 45% of the GDP. They know that small and medium-sized enterprises are important to the communities in their constituencies.

Canadians trust small and medium-sized enterprises to create the jobs. I've distributed some information that shows that. I can give you other items. They don't trust unions or big business to create the jobs. In fact, Canadians' preference is to work in or own a small business, not to work in government or in big business. Times have changed.

All four parties have told us it's good policy and good politics to encourage small and medium-sized business growth and job creation. All of you have told us that. That is why we don't understand Bill C-257. It's bad policy and it's bad politics.

Why is it bad policy? A very recent Human Resources and Social Development Canada study came out--October 24, 2006--and they observed many things. One thing they observed is that there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages. They say there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation results in shorter duration of work stoppages. It also says that several academic studies on the impact of replacement worker legislation have concluded that a legislative ban on replacement workers is associated with more frequent and longer strikes. That's not just their study; it's several academic studies.

Is this the goal of this legislation--more frequent and longer strikes? Even if I'm wrong, shouldn't you take the time to make sure it's right? If this is such important legislation, then why is this committee and a minority government trying to quickly ram this legislation through the House?

This committee spent several months hearing witnesses in locations across the country to discuss job creation. Why is this committee restricting the number of witnesses and spending only two days to discuss legislation that we feel will be devastating to small business and Canada's competitiveness? Why was the B.C. business council turned down? Why can't they present and talk about the B.C. example? Why not take the time to get it right?

As employers and employees, we worked for several years along with government to improve parts I and II of the Canada Labour Code. We spent almost two years working on part III of the Canada Labour Code. The goal was to modernize the code to reflect the new economy.

This bill changes part I of the Canada Labour Code over a few months with very little input from employers, who will be significantly impacted by this bill. This is bad politics.

You have before you a letter that we've distributed, that we sent to every one of you--personalized, to every member of Parliament--on behalf of our 105,000 small business owners, informing MPs of the impacts of this legislation on small business in their communities. This is not just a big union, big business issue. This bill will have a significant impact on our members and on small business in your constituency. This bill will no longer quietly sneak through the House of Commons.

We do not have the financial resources that the CLC, the CAW, CUPW, or CUPE have at their disposal. We can't mount a massive lobbying campaign and ridings on the Hill like the CLC did, with 150 union activists blitzing MPs over a three-day period before you voted on the bill. However, we do have 105,000 small business owners as members, and we do make 4,500 small business visits every week. We will be watching each MP and how you vote, informing our small business owners in your riding how you vote on this bill.

You can't have it both ways by saying you support small business and then supporting this union-sponsored bill. Our members and small business owners across the country will be watching not only how you vote, but also whether or not you give the time for meaningful and serious debate on this legislation.

George and our members will be watching very closely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to start with the first round of questions.

Mr. Regan, seven minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me first say that as I listened to some of the stories about some of the things that happen in strikes, I'm reminded a little bit of what Winston Churchill said about democracy. He said that democracy is the worst system devised by the mind of man, except for all the others. Of course, were he saying it today, he would probably say “the mind of people”, right, and be more gender neutral.

It strikes me that strikes are like that. They are a very imperfect process as a way to resolve a dispute. I think everyone here supports the right to strike, and we recognize that collective bargaining is important, but you sometimes have to wish there were a different process for resolving disputes among employers and employees about issues related to their collective agreements.

You may want to comment on that in a moment, but let me speak for a moment about one of the provisions of this bill. In proposed subsection 94(2.4) of the bill it states:

The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).

My understanding of what this provision would do is that it essentially means an employer could use managers or other workers who are not on strike to do work to make sure, for instance, that the trains did not fall apart, that they were painted or whatever, but not to keep them running, or not to ensure that the electricity was provided or that telecommunications services were provided on an ongoing basis.

It seems to me that's a concern. It seems to me that should not be what we should be trying to achieve here. What is your view on that? Do you really agree with that provision?

I guess I will ask Mr. Dénommé and Mr. Forder particularly. Mr. Whyte is anxious to answer, so we'll let him.

[Jacques Dénommé]

I'm sorry. I had trouble hearing the interpretation, and I think I missed part of your question toward the end. Could you summarize it please?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Fine. I will repeat it in French. Proposed subclause (2.4) reads as follows:

(2.4) The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).

As I understand it, that means that employers can use other workers who remain on the job and keep their jobs in order to protect and maintain the facilities, buildings, etc., but not to continue the companies' business.

[Jacques Dénommé]

In my opinion, in the case of a labour dispute, of course the company will continue to provide minimum service. I know that the legislation sometimes refers to essential services. However, beyond this concept, any company involved in a labour dispute will ensure that it continues its activities to some extent, in order to provide services.

However, when replacement workers are used, the company goes beyond this. They try to say that the company is continuing to operate as though there were no labour dispute. In my opinion, that disrupts the balance of power. That is why the dispute last an extremely long time.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Under this subclause, the company could not continue to operate; it could simply maintain its property. I have a problem with that.

In cases where the company can only offer minimum telecommunications or transportation services—and we have already discussed ports, for example—the economic impact could obviously be severe.

Would there not be another way of dealing with these matters?

[Mario Gervais]

I work for Hydro-Québec. We have similar legislation in Quebec. It allows the employer to maintain production using the employees who were there before the dispute began. That means non-unionized employees, because the unionized employees are on strike, of course.

I would like to stress this point, because I have been involved in these disputes on both sides, and I know that they are extraordinarily difficult in personal terms for workers and clients and also as regard labour relations within the company.

Once an employer uses replacement workers, it takes years to restore a good atmosphere in the workplace. The atmosphere at work has been poisoned by the replacement workers. This would no longer happened under this legislation.

[Paul Forder]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

First of all, if marriages lasted 97% and 98% and had that record, I think most people would say that's very successful, and when we put this into context, for the disputes that we have and for all the agreements that we settle, we're doing a pretty good job.

To get over the hurdle of the last 3%, at least, we've got to put it in context. Management can have salaried employees and management can take care of the operation to make sure it's primed, should the strike or the lockout become settled, so that there's minimal time down when you want to return, and that's good; that makes a lot of sense. You want to keep the boilers going and you want to keep everything primed. That's essential to making sure you have a good working relationship when it ends.

I don't think it's as dour as maybe you think it is, but what's really important here is to put pressure on both sides to get to that table and make a settlement.

When workers don't have adequate income and the employer doesn't have adequate income, they sit back and they knock their head. In the example I gave you about Navistar, you know all the terrible times we went through when the replacement firm was hired to hire replacement workers and not one production vehicle was sent out the gate--but after the worker was run over, the sides got together and said, “What the hell have we done here?” That became the impetus for a settlement.

When sides get pulled apart—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It's a pretty lousy impetus, though, isn't it?

[Paul Forder]

I know it's awful. It's an awful, painful experience. But sometimes that jars the parties into thinking, “What have we done? Where have we gone? Let's bring this back together and find a solution.” That's why we know, and are convinced, that if we can take away that impediment, it will create more balance and you'll have more amicable relations.

For my friend who has CAW members at this airline and says he's never had a strike, give us a break; we're doing something right if we haven't even had a strike and we're working things out. So let's not try to look—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

But isn't that his answer to your point, if things are working out already?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have, but just to keep a sense of balance here, I know you also wanted to comment, Mr. Whyte.

[Garth Whyte]

I do want to make the comment that it's always good when the CAW represents us. I feel very good about that.

The point is that George knows the name of every employee. He knows their families. This is different. The small business working world is different from the working world of big union and big business. It's an employee-employer relationship very much like an insurance brokerage; you know that.

I just want to thank you for bringing this up. I was listening to the session just before this, and I heard people saying, look, the companies can still run because management can run the company. But now when you read the act, and when you talk about it...because that's what I was hearing here.

You're right, proposed subsection 94(2.4) says that you can just keep the lights on; you can't keep running it.

[A voice]

No, no.

[Garth Whyte]

Oh, yes.

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

We should look at subclause (2.3). These measures have to do with subclause (2.3).