Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[A voice]

I know you're angry, but you should read all—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would ask everyone to go through the chair.

Mr. Regan, we thank you.

We're going to move to Madame Lavallée.

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

So it is my turn. Fine.

I would like to start by correcting one thing. When we talk about subclause (2.4), which reads: “The measures refer to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures [...]”, the reference is to subclause (2.3), which reads:

(2.3) The application of subsection (2.1) does not have the effect of preventing the employer from taking any necessary measures to avoid the destruction of the employer's property or serious damage to that property.

I think you understand what that means; I do not have to explain it further. The measures taken to prevent damage to property can only be conservation measures. In other words, if you have an aluminum kettle and it is needing repair, the act would allow you to hire people to get this work done on the kettle. That is what the provision means.

That was the first point I wanted to clarify. There are a few points like that, because I heard some quite amazing things this morning and just a while ago. In fact it started this week, on December 7, with a message from the CNW Group, which Ms. Pohlmann quoted. She is the Director of National Affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The quote reads as follows:

Members of Parliament who vote to ban replacement workers are actually speaking in favour of the disappearance of SMEs within their communities.

I felt out my chair when I read that, but I have been able to resume my seat since. The fact remains that saying things like that—you will understand this, Mr. Whyte—, is really a gross exaggeration. Have SMEs disappeared in Quebec in the last 30 years: no, not at all. I will give you a copy of this, Ms. Pohlmann,I would be pleased to do so. Have SMEs disappeared in Quebec in the last 30 years? Of course not. SMEs are still there, in fact the entire Quebec economy is based mainly on SMEs.

It is often said that anything that is overstated is insignificant. So you will appreciate that this cast doubt on all the statements you have just made, on your remarks and your presentation. And this is added to the fear campaign that has been waged here this morning. It felt like Halloween, because people were pouring out all the scarecrows they could. I would mention the threat of complete paralysis in Canada, the ensuing economic chaos, including the famous statement that the 911 emergency service and public services for people would be threatened by anti-strike breaker legislation.

As was said earlier, the 911 service in Quebec, in Longueuil for example, is a municipal responsibility. In other provinces, it is a provincial responsibility. This would not be affected at all by anti-strikebreaker legislation.

I would point out, Mr. Whyte, that you are one of the people who signed the advertisement that appeared in The Hill Times and that is the same kind of fearmongering tactics. Unfortunately, I did not see the French version of it, but the ad said that this legislation could result in an interruption of vital services for seniors, families, small businesses, the Canadian economy, including services such as 911, healthcare services, emergency services and so on. So here come the scarecrows again. None of this has any credibility. None of this has any balance.

This is quite unfortunate, because you say you disagree with the anti-strike breaker legislation, Mr. Whyte, it always seems that you do not disagree with the bill, but rather with unions and strikes. If you reread the presentation you made to us earlier you will see that every time you talk about the catastrophes that could happen, no distinction is made between the catastrophe of a strike and the ban on using replacement workers. They really seem to be the same thing for you.

Moreover, I can tell you that generally speaking unions are composed of people who are good negotiators—to say the least—but also people who know how to negotiate without loosing sight of public health and safety. For example, within the federal government itself, correctional officers, who are represented by the CSN in Quebec and the union throughout the country, have the right to strike. The 6,000 correctional officers have the right to strike, but they have agree that 100% of their services were essential. So, such things can be done through the union.

Then you spoke to us about Georges. I thought I had picked up an old copy of Reader's Digest, where there were articles about Georges' knee or his heart. Now it is about his plane. The famous Georges in question, once again, could use his management staff to maintain the service. Everything would not come to a standstill. It will not be the end of the world. We are very far from a chaotic situation. Moreover, with respect to your threat to go to see our SMEs in our ridings to tell them whether their member voted for or against the bill, I would like to reassure you that you do not need to go to Saint-Bruno this winter, but that you can go there as well if you want to. I have sent out a letter to everyone in my riding to tell them that I had voted for the bill and that I was very happy to have done so.

I just wanted to clarify some aspects of the situation that were ambiguous to say the least.

I would like to talk about Vidéotron, because it is of particular concern to me, and about all the scary possibilities that were talked about earlier. At the time of the strike at Vidéotron—and there were several—there was never an interruption in the cable service at my home.

The only time a strike at Vidéotron was really problematic was when some of its facilities were attacked. There was vandalism because the company had hired replacement workers.

I would like you to tell me why unionized workers sometimes find themselves in the situation in which the employer's facilities have been vandalized. I would like you to tell me a little about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There's only one minute left, so keep that in mind with your comments.

[Jacques Dénommé]

There is no doubt that in a situation such as the one we described earlier, whether it is a lack of balance in the bargaining and that in fact there are really no negotiations going on—a feeling of exasperation sets in. That is when things become desperate.

If the company had decided to organize a war, rather than a round of bargaining, and if it had been organized and structured so that employers would come into work and perform their duties day after day... Without bargaining, well I can tell you that a year is a very long time for people with families who lose their homes, for those who have tremendous financial difficulties, for those who declare bankruptcy, for those who become ill and for those who have all sorts of other things happen to them.

Violence breaks out when people on picket lines have lost hope. It is not organized, people do not set out to be violent. They do desperate things because they simply cannot take it anymore. There is no doubt that these conditions give rise to this type of situation. There comes a time when things get out of hand. People must be given hope that something will happen, that some day an agreement will be reached. I think violence happens once despair sets in.

It all comes back to the idea of balance. There must be balance so that the parties can dialogue intelligently and build a climate of trust, as we said earlier today. Without trust, no agreement is possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have. We're going to have to move on to the next one. I'm sorry, no, you have to wait, maybe one of the other people will answer the question.

I do believe we're going to have summon this George to appear at this meeting, because he has been referenced a couple of times.

Ms. Davies, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

First of all, to CUPE and CAW, I think it was very interesting to hear about what happened at Vidéotron when replacement workers weren't there and what happened when they were there. I think it's a really graphic example of what takes place during a dispute. I appreciate the fact that you've brought this important information forward.

Similarly, to the CAW, in terms of what happened in that situation, I'll certainly look at your CD.

I think it is important for us to understand what really takes place on the picket lines, with the violence that can unfortunately happen, and what it does to the labour relations environment afterwards. I think it is very much a part of this bill.

In terms of the presentation from the CFIB, I think you're proposing that the interests of small business are mutually exclusive to this bill and they're in direct contravention and opposition to each other. I guess I don't see it that way.

You posed a question to us on what would happen to this fellow and his northern airline and whether or not this bill would help. I guess my response is, yes, I think it would.

First of all, it may never have an impact on him at all. You said he's unionized. It sounds like he has a good relationship with his union and his workers. It's terrific, and no one's knocking that. In fact, on the contrary, it should be applauded. Hopefully, there would never be a situation where this bill would be used. But if there were a dispute or a strike and he tried to bring in replacement workers, then this bill would be used. There could be an impact on him through some other sector where this bill was being used.

But I happen to believe that in the broader environment of this bill, when there is a level playing field and replacement workers can't come in, allowing management to still do its job and allowing for essential services, it actually creates a better labour relations environment.

From that point of view, I don't think it would hurt the member you used as an example. In fact, if anything, I would think it would be conducive to a better and more positive environment. I really don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Otherwise, I wouldn't be supporting this bill.

I think it is important that we look at this bill in the context of where it would be applied and where it wouldn't be applied. It's not a blanket thing. It only kicks in for a very specific situation.

I think we have to be careful not to overreact to this bill. I realize you have some concerns about it, and that's fair enough.

I would ask all of the witnesses if they have any suggestions on where they would like to see any changes in the bill, because I think that's what we're also here to do. We're here to hear your overall points of view.

But if you actually have specific recommendations for any improvements or changes that you'd like to see in the bill, because we will be dealing with amendments, then I'd certainly appreciate your thoughts on that, if you have any suggestions in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Whyte.

[Garth Whyte]

Thanks so much, Mr. Chair.

I guess I'd like to respond and thank you for your comments.

No one supports violence; we certainly don't. Everyone wants to do the right thing. Why can't you take the time to do it right? It's clear that we can misunderstand this bill.

We were just told that we were able to appear before you here on Thursday. We know there were different groups, with people talking about the B.C. example. The Business Council of British Columbia wanted to apply to appear and they were turned down.

Why not get all the facts? Why not do the right thing?

Quite frankly, my member, George, would disagree with you. He's not an expert on replacement worker legislation. He is an expert on his business. He is deathly afraid of this. He wouldn't let me use his real name because he is afraid of CAW and their tactics.

People are only talking about the big bad employer. What about the big bad union? This violence isn't just caused by big bad employers crossing the picket line. Big bad unions also cause violence. Think about that. I know this may not sit well with some people around the table, but it's the case.

This is not a federal issue, but there was a strike, a university teacher's strike. In this northern community, they didn't want to strike, but they had to because they were part of the union. Under this bill they're called scabs.

Does it apply to this airline? He has a couple of unions. Is there a certain part of the union that would be linked to the CAW? If there were a strike on airlines, would they be unable to cross the picket line, even though they're actually employers in the firm? Would they have the right to work?

We were talking about some foreign workers we're bringing in. Even with the telecommunications examples, most of those people were people who worked in that business and disagreed with their union. Is that right? Who speaks on behalf of those people?

I'm only raising some questions here. I'm telling you that we are afraid. We'll get the businesses in your ridings to phone you, and they can tell you how afraid they are.

Don't sneak the bill through. Let's hear both sides. We've had this discussion for a decade.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We are hearing both sides.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

On a point of order, I'm starting to be fed up with having some witnesses who are trying to say we're pulling something off here.

I will say it in French.

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

That's not a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

No. I believe we've been discussing this issue for a long time.

When we did things, we did them the right way. No one here tried to do anything sneaky. If the witness must justify his salary by raising his voice, there is no problem, he may do so, but no one here played any games. Everyone did their job properly.

So I would ask the witness to behave appropriately.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Hold on. I'll just state the facts here. There was a motion proposed here to hear more witnesses that was shut down by this committee.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That's not sneaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So until we have a fulsome discussion—and there are 40, 50, or 60 witnesses who can't come because we've limited it to 20 witnesses—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That's the chair for the Conservatives talking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, those are the facts right now. So that is just what we're talking about.

Mr. Whyte, you can finish your comments.

[Garth Whyte]

I apologize. I shouldn't be saying “sneaking”, but that's how we feel. We have lots of people who would like to present, who are concerned about their business. If I'm speaking loudly, it's because we're passionate about this.

The answer is, we always seem to be the meat in the sandwich. We're always the ones that people forget about when the unions and big business cut a deal.

Yes, that's right. That's what happening. There's a part III in the Canada Labour Code—why?—because there are a lot of smaller businesses that are included under the Canada Labour Code.

We never contested the replacement worker provision in 1999. That was done with Nancy Riche and Don Brazier. That was the thing, because at that time, in that particular bill, it said that replacement workers cannot undermine the unions. It's there.

So we are surprised. We do think it's being pushed through. We just find out about this, and we're told that in three days we have to present about this. I think you forgot about our constituency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have for that round.

We're going to move now to Mr. Lake for seven minutes.

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

I'll start off by saying, Mr. Whyte, that you don't have to apologize; you're 100% right in what you say.

I notice there's no point of order coming this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do we have a point of order here?

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

This decision was made by a majority of committee members. No one imposed anything that was out of order. So if you want to call the question again, Mr. Chairman, we will do so, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

For ten minutes now, I have been listening to a lot of idiocy that questions the relevance of our decision, particularly the way in which it was made. A decision was made democratically, Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the rules and regulations of the House.

Perhaps some are not happy about the decision. They should present an official request along those lines, and we will consider it. However, to date, that has not been done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. I will state for the record again that we have had 50 or 60 witnesses approach us, and we have clearly said they can't come, because we're only going to hear 20 witnesses.

Once again, for the record, we did vote that. That is clearly how the committee voted. That doesn't change the fact that there are still 50 or 60 witnesses who wanted to appear before this committee who weren't allowed to appear before this committee. Those are strictly the facts.