Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Michael McDermott]

On the issue of pendulum swings, I think the Ontario experience that I referred to was classic. There is a risk in this. It was simply that the process lacked involvement of both parties, in the case of former Premier Rae's amendments.

There's an article I can refer you to on the 16th annual Sefton Memorial Lecture, given at the University of Toronto by Kevin Burkett, a respected and neutral arbitrator still at work in Ontario. In that lecture, published in 1998, he goes into this in detail. It's worth a look. I can give you the reference afterwards, if you wish.

What happened was that in came Mr. Rae's government and they put forward a one-sided bill. They went through a mock consultation process in which Mr. Burkett was asked to chair a party. He just threw his hands up and said, this is not possible; this is a list that the government has handed down; there's no room for consultation. The result was that when former Premier Harris came in, he was able to simply push it all back. He even annoyed management as well while he was doing it, because he pushed the balance way too far back.

So there's always a problem if you don't include labour and management and try to get them to come as closely together as they can, which I think in many respects Sims did, because he focused on the unfair labour practice side of the use of replacement workers—union busting.

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

That's the major flaw here, that it's not—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Hiebert, I'm sorry, that's all the time we have. That's over the seven minutes. We're going to move to the next round.

Mr. D'Amours, seven minutes, please.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you.

Did you say seven minutes? Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, my mistake. You have five minutes.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before asking my questions, I would like to make a comment.

I am eager to see how my Conservative colleagues will vote today on this bill that aims to redo the study of a bill that was adopted by the previous Parliament. We will see if they are consistent and how they will vote.

Whether there have been 10 or 25 bills on replacement workers, if we follow in their logic, after today's vote, the bill should never be reopened. So I am eager to see if my colleagues opposite will follow their logic, if they will do what they said they would.

My question is for Ms. Hughes Anthony. I listened to your presentation and I read your brief, to make sure I had clearly understood. When I vote in the House, my decision is based on facts. But I do not appreciate it when someone attempts to distort the facts.

Did you read the act in full prior to your presentation today?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

The bill—

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

No, the act in full and the bill.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I carefully read the bill, of course.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Okay. Did you read the act?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I think my colleague Mr. McKinstry is quite aware of the details contained in the act.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Okay.

Can you explain to me why you talked about emergency 911 services in your presentation, when those services fall under provincial jurisdiction?

Moreover—my colleague talked about this earlier, and these are things that bother me—the current act and the bill will not affect the sections dealing with emergency services and essential services.

So why did you say in your presentation that they would be affected? Why do you say that, when there will be no impact on emergency services or the delivery of essential goods and services? Can you explain to me why you said that when the bill will not affect these services?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

Mr. Chair, I'll go back to our reading of proposed subclause 94(2.4) and the fact that a company—and let us take a telecommunications company—cannot continue to produce their goods or services. You would therefore not have a network that would function—I'm speaking theoretically here—whereby you could provide emergency services. If you don't have a company functioning, you cannot provide those services.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Yes, I understand.

Ms. Hughes Anthony, I just want to make sure we understand each other.

The proposed subsection (2.1)(c) of the bill complies with section 87.4 of the act, which deals with emergency services. That section is not amended. It reads as follows:

87.4(1) During a strike or lock-out not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

To very clear, is that dealing with so-called conservation measures that are referred to in subsection (2.4)? Because I must say...

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

We are not talking about conservation, we are talking about the maintenance of certain activities. And the activities are goods or services. So we are not talking about maintaining equipment or buildings. It means being in a position to guarantee the supply of services. Ms. Hughes, section 87.4 of the act states that the supply of services i must be maintained the event of an emergency.

If the services are maintained in the event of an emergency, why are you saying that in a case like that, people will be affected? Why are you trying to get a message out? I am going to weigh my words carefully, but why are you using that message, when it is not what it says in the current act? I am not talking about the bill, but the current act. Moreover, the bill contains protection relating to the current act and to that section.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I have a different reading of proposed subsection (2.4) than the committee member does. I say it prohibits the continuation of the production of goods and services, and that is the basis on which I have made my comments here today. If I am wrong or if the committee is proposing amendments, I would be happy to see that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. D'Amours, that's all the time we have, sir.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I will reread it: "...the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods...". The production of goods does not simply mean leaving the lights on, but producing the goods.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

We're going to move to Mr. Lessard now. Five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming this morning and for your contribution.

I also have a question for you, Ms. Hughes. I will not talk about statistics, but I will try to identify your true intention with respect to this bill. You say that you represent 170,000 businesses and 350 affiliated chambers. That is a lot of people.

Ms. Hughes, how many of all these companies are unionized?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I do not know the exact percentage of companies that are unionized.

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

Are they all companies that fall under federal jurisdiction as regards the Canada Labour Code?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

Of course, they are all governed by Canadian laws, when they are located in Canada.

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

Are these companies involved in activities Canada-wide? Are some of the companies involved only in provincial activities and covered by a provincial labour code?