Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Deborah Bourque]

Can I respond to the question about balance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Actually, we're way over time. We're going to move on. Maybe we can work it in with the next questioner.

Just before we move on to Madame Lavallée, I want to ask the will of the committee as to whether we can release Mr. Toupin. I know we brought him in to help us out as legislative clerk, but he's a very busy man and he's been very gracious in coming here this morning. If it's the will of the committee that we release him now, I'm sure we'll have him back at another time.

Would that be okay with the committee?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm sorry, but no. I want to talk about it after the witnesses, shortly.

If you want to go and come back, that's okay, but we need to ask a few questions before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You don't want to talk to him on Tuesday? You want to make it—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'd like to talk to him today. Could we have him come back at a certain time today? Do we have enough time for that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could he come back, maybe at a quarter to one?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right, thank you.

Madame Lavallée, you'll have seven minutes, please.

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

Ms. Hughes Anthony, in your presentation, you talked about the proposed subsection (2.4) of the bill. You took this section out of its context, in subsection (2.2), to give it an entirely new meaning.

Earlier, I raised a point of order on the subject with my colleague Mike Lake, who recognized it. I think that you were in the room at that time. I hope that you and the people who are in this room and who are listening to me will not go back to that, because you cannot use the proposed subsection (2.4). The words "The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures" refer back to proposed subsection (2.3) which precedes it and which reads as follows:

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

The proposed subsection (2.1) deals with prohibitions relating to replacement workers.

Next, subsection (2.4) says, and I quote:

(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 [...]

The measures we are talking about are the measures that the employer will take, in other words he will undoubtedly hire additional personnel.

While the proposed subsection (2.4)does not apply to all of the proposed subsection (2.1), it is consistent with proposed subsection (2.3).

Is that clear, Ms. Hughes Anthony?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

No, not at all.

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

Read it again. I have only seven minutes to ask you questions, so please take the time to read this at home or at the office. Then you can come back to talk to me about it later. You could also ask your legal counsel—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There is a point of order, Madame Lavallée. I'll stop the clock.

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

I'm just confused about what we're referring to, because you were talking about proposed subsection 94(2.4) and it being linked to subsection 94(2.3), I think, at some point. I don't think subsection 94(2.5) has ever been discussed.

Can we clarify which points you're talking about here? Subsection 94(2.4) is not linked in any way to subsection 94(2.3).

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

I hope that this was not coming out of my time.

As I said earlier, the proposed subsection (2.4) refers to the proposed subsection (2.3), because subsection (2.2) states, and I quote:

(2.2) Despite subsection (2.1), an employer may use the services of the following persons during a strike or a lock-out:

So the employer can use managers. That's what this says.

We, the members of the Bloc Québécois, would like the federal legislation to be identical to the legislation Quebec has had for 30 years. If we need to clarify certain things to have it be identical, and for managers to be able to work during a labour dispute or a lock-out, we could amend the bill next week, during the clause-by-clause consideration.

That said, the Bloc Québécois never had any intention of interrupting production. In any case, Ms. Hughes Anthony, if you look at Quebec's experience with this over the past 30 years, you will see that managers have always been able to work. Think back to the SAQ strike two years ago. Managers operated the SAQ for three months, serving customers and selling as much alcohol as people wanted, even during the Holiday period. So you shouldn't worry about that.

You are interpreting this provision to say what it does not in fact say. You are also talking about 911 services, which come under provincial jurisdiction in any case. But even though 911 services are subject to anti-scab legislation, there have been no catastrophes because of it. You are repeating the same arguments as the add we saw in the Hill Times this week, which predicted the repercussions on health and transportation services would be catastrophic. To me, that shows the arguments are not very strong. And therefore, we do not care to hear other arguments you may wish to advance.

Mr. McDermott, I have a great deal of respect for everything you have done, and I do believe that the legislation, the consolidation of Part I of the Canadian Labour Code, was well prepared at the time. The process extended over four years, but the actual work took two years. Afterwards, Rodrigue Blouin tabled a minority report setting out a number of important factors regarding balance. Rodrigue Blouin—a highly respected and respectable university professor—described what was meant by balance in his report.

Balance does not mean the employer's right to continue production. That's not balance, though that is the meaning the minister put forward elsewhere. A balance in the relationship between employers and employees is found when both parties can negotiate without a third player. Replacement workers are intruders in the negotiations between the employer and the union. That is why in Quebec the process works as well as it does, and why Quebec has found a balance. Moreover, that approach harmonizes long-term relations between employers and employees, something that the current legislation—the Canada Labour Code—has not achieved.

You say that process has been tried and tested, and that the balance is there. That is not true. Look at the Videotron strike, which lasted 22 months; the Cargill strike in Baie-Comeau, which lasted 36 months; the Radio-Nord strike in Abitibi, which lasted 2 months. And I haven't even mentioned the 12-employee strike at the Bonaventure radio station in Gaspe, which lasted 36 months. After two years, the 12 replacement workers asked for union accreditation. So you can see that there is no balance, and that intruders end up forming a sub-category of workers. In fact, the 12 replacement workers never obtained union accreditation, when normally people who work for two years at the same location can obtain it. So there's nothing normal about those situations.

You also say that we do not have much time to study the bill. However, bills of this nature have been tabled in Parliament since 1990. The Bloc Québécois has tabled 10 of them. The last one them was tabled only on last May 4^th. Everyone has had ample time to make announcements, advertise, discuss the bills, debate them and take part in the debate. Moreover, this bill relies on 30 years' experience.

In that context, Ms. Bourque, I would appreciate hearing you talk about the long-term impact of anti-strikebreaking legislation.

[Deborah Bourque]

Thanks very much.

Yes, my union has been subjected to the use of scabs in two of our strikes. I just wanted to say that when employers use scabs to try to break strikes, the long-term effect on labour relations can be disastrous. It takes decades for unions and employers to recover from those types of conflicts. It's always difficult for labour and management to renew that relationship after a strike or after tough bargaining, but it's especially difficult when the employer has chosen to use scabs, because of the intensity of the conflict, the potential and real violence that occurs on picket lines, and the ill feelings that are brought back into the workplace. The last time the employer used scabs in one of our strikes was 1991, and it took us at least a decade to recover from that and to begin to heal the labour relations in that workplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

Thank you, Ms. Bourque.

Ms. Hughes Anthony, did you have a very quick response?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I simply want to point out to Ms. Lavallée that in our presentation, on pages 6 and 7, we quote figures that establish the difference between the situation in Quebec and the situation faced by industries that fall under federal jurisdiction. That is perhaps something you could take a look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

I want to point out that some of the confusion arises because there is a difference in translation between proposed subsection (2.4) in the French and proposed subsection (2.4) in the English. That will have to be addressed by the committee, because the French doesn't make reference to proposed subsection (2.2) at all. Once again, that will be something we have to deal with. I know it caused some of the confusion over here.

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

So we were both right. But I am more right because the bill was drafted in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure. Thank you for the comments.

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

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I get into my questions and comments, I wanted to note of two things. One is that Ms. Lavallée refers to the fact that this bill has been introduced 10 times. I would note that it was unsuccessful 10 times, and that might be an indication of why they keep repeating it. If it clearly cannot be passed the first number of times, perhaps there is something deeply flawed about this legislation.

As well, I hope that during our discussion, for the remainder of this time, we can refer to people as replacement workers and not as scabs, as I think the term “scab” is not included in the legislation and is a rather derogatory remark. It's a dehumanizing comment that I don't think should be appropriately used in this discussion.

I want to approach this from a top-down or a “big perspective” bird's-eye view.

I've been listening to this testimony for some time and I've been hearing the unions say that the genuine benefit of this legislation is that it will increase labour peace and reduce violence. And yet the statistics that we're given repeatedly suggest the very contrary; that there would be no increase in labour peace. In fact, all the evidence suggests there would be more work stoppages and strikes of longer duration if this bill were to proceed.

In terms of violence, one of the previous witnesses suggested that we've moved beyond that in labour relations in Canada, and that violence is really no longer an issue.

So I'm struggling with understanding the real motivation behind the introduction of this bill and why certain groups are so strongly supporting it when the evidence is so strong to the contrary.

On the other side, I see people repeatedly telling us, as witnesses and in evidence submitted to this committee, that the consequences of adopting this legislation are dramatic, that they're enormous on a domestic level and on an international level.

Domestically it would put essential services at risk. We're talking about emergency services; we're talking about access to isolated communities, as was mentioned by a previous witness; we're talking about transportation of food. Airlines and all kinds of things would be put at risk. The consequences sound tremendous.

And of course, on the other side the unions are saying that's over-exaggerated, that those statements are unrealistic.

It would seem to me that if there is even a remote possibility that these consequences could occur, it's a very serious thing to be considered, and I have trouble just setting those statements aside.

Another possible consequence that needs to be considered is the impact on competitiveness. We've had witnesses coming in saying that if they had to operate under this legislation they would not be able to compete with their U.S. and Mexican counterparts.

There are tremendous impacts on investment. We work in a global economy, and investors look at countries around the world to choose to invest in. We want Canada to be a competitive place to do business, and yet people are saying repeatedly that this would reduce our competitiveness.

Finally, and most recently, we have Mr. McDermott and others saying that to adopt this legislation would undermine the delicate balance that has been crafted over many years—this tripartite process of involving government, labour, and business—and the consequence of this would be to invite retaliation, as was said, or it would result in a pendulum swing and change in labour relations.

All that being said, I want to hear from some of these witnesses whether this is correct. Am I understanding the possible benefits and consequences from the right perspective? Before we drill down, I want to make sure we have the big picture in mind.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony or Mr. McDermott, I'd appreciate your comments.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I'll take a first shot at it.

I agree with your statement, Mr. Hiebert. Some might say it just affects the federally regulated company. That is not the case. These companies are federally regulated for a reason. Although Madame Lavallée talks about the Société des alcools du Québec , we're not talking about the Société des alcools du Québec ; we are talking about companies that provide the kind of framework services Canadians depend on.

The outside world looks at us and says, “That is a country that has its act together.” So it's not only societal disruption; it is also an important piece of framework legislation that you just can't change from one day to the next, because the eyes of the world are on it.

I am extremely concerned about the kind of societal disruption, the kind of trade disruption, the ripple effect it has for all of the suppliers who provide services to federally regulated companies. And as I said, it sends a bad signal not only to Canadians but to the rest of the world.

Are we going to reconvene Parliament every time there is one of these problems? That will be the end result, and that, with all respect to the members of Parliament in this room, is an extremely inefficient answer to how we deal with these situations.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

So are you concurring with my summary?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I am.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. McDermott.