Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're out of time, but a quick response would be great, Mr. Ménard.

[Gaetan Ménard]

In the sector that we represent, such things are rather rare because it takes so much personnel that they have wind down their operations. Of course, there will be some people there to maintain some services, but it is quite rare.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move on to our next round.

Mr. Lake, you've got seven minutes, sir.

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

I want to address something Mr. Coderre said that I found quite interesting. He said this is the tenth time this type of legislation has been brought forward by the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP. I imagine he was talking about the coalition. It's an interesting coalition.

If I remember correctly, the Liberals had a majority government for eleven of those years, from 1993 to 2004. I think this is the first time we've ever been to committee with this legislation. I found that a curious comment.

I want to talk about a couple of other comments. In my own riding--and Canadian citizens in general, and Mr. Bouvier was talking about this earlier--I believe there are a lot of hard-working employees, workers in my riding, many of whom are part of unions. When we have discussions, they understand the fundamental unfairness and lack of balance that would be created by this proposed legislation. Even the union employees are opposed to the legislation when they properly understand it. I understand why you would favour it, of course.

I'll go back to a comment one of the witnesses made the other day. When we were talking about management not even being able to fill in when workers are on strike or locked out, Paul Forder with CAW, in answering a question, said, “If the operation can't function with replacement workers, that's fine with us. We'll be able to get a settlement earlier. That's something all members should be interested in pursuing. That's the whole purpose of the legislation.”

The legislation is all about leverage. You talked about a level playing field and about not wanting to force businesses into bankruptcy, and I believe you. I don't think you want to force businesses into bankruptcy, but what this legislation would do would give them just two options: bankruptcy or give in. That's it. There's no balance at all. It's bankruptcy or give in.

My first question is for Mr. Mackay. I'm curious, are there circumstances where you feel rail traffic is an essential service?

[Cliff Mackay]

Absolutely, even if you define essential services very narrowly in the context of public safety. Yes, rail carriers provide a number of services that would be considered essential. I mentioned one in my presentation. It's extremely important for public health that we move certain goods to certain places, for water supply systems and other things.

More generally, the point we are making is the balance. If you take a broader view of essential services, the jobs of an enormous number of Canadians depend on our ability to provide services to their industries. The consequential impacts of disruptions of service in our industry are very profound for a whole bunch of other industries. That's a point we are sincerely concerned about in this particular legislation.

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

I have a question about the size of the unions in your industry. There must be some pretty small unions, and some larger unions, I imagine.

[Cliff Mackay]

The answer is yes, but just to give you a sense of the size, our two largest members are CN and CP. CN has seven major unions with 21 bargaining units, and CPR has five major unions with seven bargaining units. So we are a highly unionized industry. Even some of our smaller members are quite unionized.

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

Typically--I want to get a picture of this--if one of your smaller unions decides to go on strike, could you maybe give me an example of how that would impact your overall industry?

[Cliff Mackay]

It depends on the union. For public safety purposes, we are highly regulated, and many, many of our employees carry specific certifications in order to undertake certain tasks in the industry. If some of those people were to withdraw their service, and we had no way of deploying management or other people who were appropriately certified to do those jobs, then you would essentially shut down the operation very quickly.

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

Mr. Bouvier, do you have a copy of the legislation in front of you?

[Robert Bouvier]

No.

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

Mr. Benson?

[Phil Benson]

No.

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

Well, I'll read proposed subsection 92(2.4):

The measures referred to in subsection (2.2)

—which deals with management being able to step in—

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).

So it's pretty clear from that, I believe, that management can't even step in, in the case of a strike or a lockout.

[Robert Bouvier]

This is not what we've said. If you're talking about what the bill is saying, that is one thing, but we've said in our presentation that we understand that if you look at what exists presently—for example, in two provinces, management does perform the work.

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

But in this legislation we're talking about today, which is what we're discussing, it's clear that management would not even be able to step in, in this case. So even in the cases Mr. Mackay is talking about, management could not step in.

You have it right there?

[Robert Bouvier]

It reads:

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).

Well, what does proposed subsection 92(2.1) do?

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

It's not referring to proposed subsection 92(2.1) but 92(2.2). It simply talks about management stepping in. I won't have you read proposed subsection 92(2.2). We've gone over these things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

A point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I find that this is intellectually dishonest. We must read subsection 92(2.4) after section 92(2.3). We must also read subsection 92(2.2) in its entirety. It lends a false meaning to subsection 92(2.4). This does not refer to anti-scab measures, it refers to measures that are needed to avoid destruction. This refers to subsection 92(2.3).

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

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

Actually, I'm just going to go to a different question here quickly.

I'm just curious, because we oftentimes hear the word “fearmongering” used across there, and by some of the witnesses in favour of the legislation, in talking about those who oppose it. I find that interesting, because virtually every single person who has lobbied me on behalf of this legislation has talked about violence, and that basically the lack of legislation such as this is what leads to violence on the picket lines, and things like that. It's been referred to today.

So my question is pretty direct: is violence on the picket line in a legal strike or lockout ever justified?

Mr. Bouvier.

[Robert Bouvier]

Never. Violence is never something you look for.

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

It's never justified?

[Robert Bouvier]

It's never justified.