Good afternoon. My name is Michel Kelly-Gagnon. I am the President of the Conseil du patronat du Québec. I am accompanied by Mr. André C. Giroux from the Ogilvy Renault Law Firm.
The Conseil du patronat is an association of employers whose members, either directly or by affiliation with sectoral organizations, employ close to 70% of Quebec's labour force.
Our message today is straightforward and direct: For the love of God, throw this bill out, it will not be beneficial in any of the ways that have been predicted, rather, it will have many unexpected consequences.
I would like to clarify something right away. The member for Gatineau stated before this committee on November 28 that the Conseil du patronat du Québec had never made an attempt to block this bill to prevent the use of replacement workers in Quebec.
On the contrary, at the time, the Conseil du patronat went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to have its legal interest recognized and to fight this legislation. Then, after doing so at the Supreme Court level, the Conseil appeared before the Appeal Court of Québec to fight this bill. It ended up dropping the case at the Appeal's Court realizing it was a lost cause. Going to the Supreme Court and then to the Appeal's Court is not what I would call not making an attempt to stop this bill.
I thought it was important to set the record straight given that there is a lot of misinformation floating about on this issue.
I would like to remind you that the burden of proof lays with the political parties and groups supporting this bill, and not with us. Indeed, in order to gain your support for this bill the onus is on them to demonstrate it would be effective and beneficial as promised. They have to prove that this bill will, in and of itself, reduce the number of labour disputes, their duration and intensity, as promised. Let me reiterate: The burden of proof is on those wishing to amend the legislation.
I would like to draw your attention to page 5 of our brief, where you will find a table with data from Human Resources and Social development Canada's HRSDC current Website. If you are interested in where we got our statistics, just go to this Website.
The chart takes a comparative look at the frequency of work stoppages over a 25 year period, from 1980 to 2005. You will see that there have been fewer labour disputes in Quebec since 1977. That is indeed true, but what the components of this bill fail to tell you is that in jurisdictions where there is no legislation preventing the use of replacement workers the same trend may be observed and it is, in some cases, even more marked.
In other words, every jurisdiction has seen a similar drop in the number of labour disputes regardless of the existence of legislation banning the use of replacement workers. Furthermore, let me turn to how economic infrastructure and Canadians' financial security. You will note that my argument has nothing to do with Canadians' physical safety, but rather their financial security. In our opinion, this is a key argument because it goes to the heart of Canada's economic infrastructure.
We are not referring to florists or gift card shops; we are talking about banks, financial services, telecommunications, air transport, rail transport, and so on and so forth. As the representatives from the airport association explained earlier, the ramifications of any such paralysis are clear. Imagine the damage this could potentially do to our economy, to families and communities. I appeal to every one who cares about Canada's competitiveness.
The issue of balance had been brought up. Let me tell you what I understand by balance. According to the Canada Industrial Board in 2005-2006, 97% of collective agreements under federal jurisdiction were signed without a single work stoppage, that 97%? What are you trying to achieve with this bill?Jeopardize the security of Canada's economic and infrastructure for a mere 3%? You have got balance, in my opinion, with 97%.
I'd like to congratulate this committee for having had the wisdom to consider other studies. There has been a lot of talk about the Quebec model. Seven minutes is not enough time for me to give you a complete understanding of it, however I invite you to visit our beautiful province and to speak with our business people who have been under this legislation's stranglehold for the past 30 years. I am sure you would find that very useful.
I would also like to stress that it is perfectly normal for some political parties to support this legislation given that they have a natural alliance with the unions. They basically don't think twice before supporting such legislation. That is quite a normal way of functioning for these political parties which, I might point out, don't have much of a chance of forming the next government. In some cases they do not even intend to try. However, some political parties may be called upon to form upcoming governments. In my opinion, these parties should get more attention on this matter.
I would like to close by referring to an infamous statement made by Stéphane Dion in the House: We must say no, no, no, to Bill C-257, no to a bill which will not be able to make good on its promises.
Mr. Giroux will be able to speak to the issue of violence. Should you have any questions on this issue, we would be pleased to provide you with any details.
We must say no to a bill which will disrupt the balance of power in union management bargaining.
In fact, on the union side, a striking employee has the right to work if he or she so desires. The opposite would, however, not be true in the case of an employer wishing to hire replacement workers. Let me reiterate, labour relations at a federal level are just fine in the majority of cases.
We must say no to a bill which would affect the very economic infrastructure of our country and which is, in itself a threat to Canada's economic security. In my opinion, any threat to Canadians' financial security should be more than enough to raise doubts in the minds of committee members.