Thank you.
Because B.C. passed replacement worker legislation a few years ago, I think it's important that you understand fully how this occurred.
When the NDP provincial government was elected in 1992, it did a full review of what was then the Industrial Relations Act through a special subcommittee consisting of one employer representative, one representative from the trade union movement, and a neutral chair. They agreed on 95% of the new labour code. There were four issues they did not agree on, one of them being replacement worker legislation.
The adviser for the employers recommended that nothing be done on replacement workers. The labour adviser recommended a limited ban on replacement workers. The neutral chair was in between, talking about a mechanism to settle a dispute where replacement workers were used.
What came about, however, was something far beyond what the committee even remotely recommended. The government at that time arbitrarily decided to incorporate restrictions on the use of replacement workers into the revised code. The employer community at the time did not support this and felt it tipped the balance of the labour code in favour of trade unions. We have never changed our position.
We do an annual member survey on labour and employment legislation, and the removal of the prohibition on the use of replacement workers tops the list every year. We will continue to press our provincial government to remove this provision from the B.C. code.
I want to talk briefly about what we have in B.C., versus what's proposed in Bill C-257. While employers in B.C. find the replacement worker legislation repugnant, what we find under Bill C-257 is even more draconian. Employees under the B.C. code can cross a picket line; they cannot do so under this. Employers can attempt to manage their businesses under the B.C. legislation; under Bill C-257, they cannot.
The only thing an employer can do is manage his business to avoid the destruction of his or her property, or for conservation matters. In other words, a struck employer would not be allowed to continue to produce goods or provide services, no matter what the consequences.
This will have a great effect not only on employers but on the public at large. We believe that the measures contained in Bill C-257 are extremely harsh and far exceed anything found in any jurisdiction in North America.
I don't have to tell you that Canada doesn't operate in a vacuum. Investors seek stability and familiarity. Generally investors prefer the same rules across jurisdictions. They are reluctant to invest dollars where jurisdictions differ.
In our submission to the Sims task force in 1995, we stated:
A legislated prohibition on the use of replacement workers would greatly increase regulatory disparities between Canada and the United States, and thus erode Canada's ability to compete and to attract new business investments.
We still believe that to this day.
We believe that there needs to be a balance in the labour code. We believe that Sims found this balance when he made his recommendations in the 1990s, and the Liberal government adopted them in 1999.
We believe that suddenly including a replacement worker provision in the Canada Labour Code will have negative effects on investment, and not only on employers but on their workers and communities. We do not want to see businesses structure themselves so that they could possibly leave our jurisdiction—that is in no one's best interest.
I would like to point out that HRSDC did a study. Proponents of the bill have argued that replacement worker legislation will shorten the duration of strikes. The HRSDC study, which was produced last year in October, proves the opposite.
As my colleague Mr. Lampert said, we believe that good labour and management relations involve valuable input from both sides. By this, in our view, the bill should not pass.