Good morning.
My name is Phil Benson. I'm a lobbyist with Teamsters Canada. With me is my president, Robert Bouvier. We also have Stéphane Lacoste, who's our general counsel. If there are any specific legal questions, we'll sub in and out.
Thank you very much for having us here. We do appreciate the time that we will share with you.
Teamsters Canada is a labour organization with approximately 125,000 members. We represent workers in all sectors—retail, motion pictures, breweries, soft drinks, construction, dairy, warehousing, and on and on. But most significantly, we're the choice of Canadian workers when it comes to the transportation sectors—air, rail, roads, ports, and mass transit. So an awful lot of the discussion that you will hear from employers and others generally relates to teamsters.
We're affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, with about 1.5 million members in North America.
There are two issues in the bill, basically. One is “welcome to the 21st century”, and the second is respect.
Hanging in my office is a lovely picture of a little girl in front of a knitting machine. It says, “If it were not for my union, we'd all be going to work at eight.” I don't think it matters whether we're talking about 40-hour work weeks, vacations, any kind of progressive legislation, or even collective bargaining in the last half century, the same old mouldy, stale arguments come out. Basically, it's Chicken Little: the world's going to end.
It hasn't ended. It continues. We have, for instance with the Railway Association, a very good relationship with employers. What it's about is dignity, about the worth of workers. I think in the end this is good for business. It's good for workers. It's also good government.
In all the previous cases that have come forward in modern collective bargaining relationships and in all the things that we've moved forward with, we have been vindicated. Unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan aren't job killers. They're important. They're important to workers, important to people. This is modern legislation dealing with respect.
It is true we have approximately one-third of workers in Canada covered by replacement workers, scab legislation, and we'd argue that Ontario repealed that as a matter of ideology, not as a matter of economics or for any other reason. People say Quebec is a little bit behind the other economies, but they forget that B.C. is booming. Pro and con arguments...I can pick one thing out of a pile and say that's the reason, but I think when we're passing legislation we need to look a little bit more deeply and be a little bit skeptical.
It is important that this bill will give uniform direction in Quebec and British Columbia. Certainly in Quebec it is an issue that people who fall under federal legislation--as our members and counsel and others have certainly relayed to us--feel they are treated separately, differently, and it is not appreciated.
The bill has two main features, and I think this is important. It's not a government bill; it's a private member's bill. It's non-partisan. It's a matter of conscience. We're very pleased up to this point that members have supported it. I think this is a first. I think it shows that most members of the House up to this point understand the respect issue, understand that it is a matter of importance to workers, that it is a step forward.
If the bill is passed, it would be the first time this type of bill would pass without government direction, without arguments. In other words, it's from principle, not politics. We can have a rational, reasoned debate. I think that's what's important about the bill. There are rational concerns and responsibilities; we understand that. We understand people are arguing different points. But it doesn't have to be--because it's a private member's bill--whipped, unwhipped, side-whipped. It's because you understand, or you don't, or you have concerns. We respect all points of view.
Some business groups and others raise concerns about what the bill would mean in certain sectors. Could a strike lockout threaten the safety or security of the public? Well, the last time I looked, in almost every sector we're in we can strike and there can be lockouts, and the world hasn't ended. We've been continuing in our business in that in probably the last half century...well, actually, for us, over a hundred years now.
Others raise economic concerns that seem to deal with the effect of strikes and lockouts under the collective bargaining process. It's part of the process. Nothing has changed.
Some business sectors—and we think it's quite strange—raised concerns about what could happen if there's a strike and they're not unionized. We're not quite sure how it's going to affect them.
Other groups raised the issue of quite small businesses that would now be affected whether or not we go on strike. I think that's perhaps not as relevant as it should be. We do welcome their intervention, because I think discussions are important, but we'd like to keep it to reasoned debate, rational debate, and not get into flights of fancy.
On a broader issue, one we do agree with is the essential services issue, as has been raised. We are one of the largest private sector unions falling under the Canada Labour Code as it applies to the key transportation sector--“we” meaning teamsters. We don't think all of it has to be reviewed at this time, but it does have to be examined. The code has a big general obligation applicable to all strikes or lockouts, and as such it is possible that almost all our members could fall under the current legislation, which we think would probably be strange. We think that fair limits and fair debate would be important. What we really do want is a fair and balanced designation system for essential services.
I'll pass it to my president.