Thank you very much, Chair.
I am accompanied here by Rob McKinstry, senior policy analyst with the Canadian Chamber, and I'm the president and CEO of the chamber. We represent more than 170,000 businesses from every industry, every region of Canada, every sector, and our members are deeply concerned about the impact of this bill.
You have a copy of our presentation, so I will not go into it in any detail. There are just a couple of comments I'd like to highlight.
First of all, I'll make a few comments about the impact of this proposed bill. I was listening to some of the earlier witnesses discuss the implications of this bill. Our reading, for example, of proposed subsection 94(2.4) of the bill is that it clearly states, in our view, that in the case of a strike there will be, as proposed by this bill, no measures allowed to continue the production of goods and services. That is our reading of that particular provision.
I would point out that federally regulated companies are federally regulated for a reason. They form the basis of a web of essential services for Canadians.
Canadians expect businesses and the government to deliver services that are essential to their health and wellbeing. Bill C-257 would undermine this expectation as companies would be forced to sit idle during a work stoppage. Federally-regulated companies are responsible for delivering the food that people eat, ensuring that 911 services are operable and accessible, and for executing financial transactions.
In the opinion of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, it is unconscionable that a law would be enacted that would put services essential to Canadians in jeopardy without any demonstrated purpose.
Here are just a couple of facts. I believe this committee has been made aware of a study done in October 2006 by HRSDC that specifically states: “There is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages.” Further, it gives statistics that note that the number of work stoppages that fall under the Canada Labour Code is significantly lower than the number of work stoppages in Quebec.
In addition, there's no evidence that replacement workers legislation has reduced the average duration of work stoppages. Once again according to that HRSDC data, despite Quebec's legislation the average work stoppage in that province has risen from 37 days on average between 1975 and 1977 to approximately 47 days on average during 2003 to 2005.
Mr. Chair, I was going to refer to some of the history of policy-making around the Canada Labour Code. I understand the next witness will be going into that in some considerable detail. Here are just a couple of notes.
We are all aware of the task force that led to the amendments of part I of the Canada Labour Code, the Sims task force.
The primary objective of the Sims task force was to balance the interests of both employers and employees. The title of his report, dated January 31, 1996, was "Setting a Balance". Mr. Sims wanted to ensure that his report reflected the interest of all parties, not just those of one stakeholder group. Unfortunately, Bill C-257 would disrupt the balance.
I think there is some evidence, Mr. Chair, that in the twenty-year period before the establishment of the Sims task force, Parliament was forced to legislate an end to federal work stoppages on seventeen occasions. Since the 1999 amendments, there has been no need to pass emergency back-to-work legislation, so I would say the amendments related to replacement workers have done what they were expected to do.
The Canada Labour Code is a basic framework law that governs the Canadian marketplace, and Canadians depend on its balance. So do international investors when they are looking at Canada as a place to do business. It's part of our international competiveness framework.
To conclude, Mr. Chair,
we currently have a fair and balanced system, developed through consultation with both business and labour, which respects the interests of both employers and employees in dealing with work stoppage. In the opinion of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, C-247 will disrupt the balance we currently have in place.
Mr. Chair, I was going to say that I was very concerned that there are many members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce who would like to appear before this committee but who are not being given the opportunity to do so. However, I understand that the committee has passed a motion to allow additional witnesses. I congratulate the committee on that, because I know many Canadians want to express their views.
In a nutshell, we have a fair labour code. We don't need to change it just to benefit one party to the detriment of society as a whole.
I'd be happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much.