Human Resources Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I have some points to make. I'm just going to pick up on what you said. The companies have a lot of power, and here we have the workers who have a lot of power. But where is the power? I'm going to go directly to where we were with Mr. Koshman, when he was asked what difficulties are caused at the courts.

When you talk about the farmer who has no power, and about when those things break down, $62 million in demurrage charges went directly to them. The farmers had to pay for a deal that was not carried through. Japan had a contract with our farmers, going back a few years. It was settled through legislation.

On the economics, we have to think internationally and globally, but we're not doing that. We seem not to realize the economics of a shutdown of ports and airports globally in regard to our trade. We're thinking a little narrowly there.

I do also want to mention that, just now, we have a strike in Saskatchewan. We have SGEU striking. Their corrections officers are on strike and their highway workers are on strike. All of them fall under public safety. However, when it came to the corrections officers, they called in the RCMP. The RCMP from Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing the corrections workers' work for the SGEU in our province, which tells me that perhaps this could get quite complicated. If we had this legislation federally, could other jurisdictions like Saskatchewan really hire people to replace them when in fact public safety...? Yes, it is important. Maybe it's not. Maybe not everybody finds that corrections officers are an essential service.

What I'm trying to say is that we have to let provinces decide whether or not there should be. If the legislation is agreed to in the provinces, fine. But federally, for us to do this, we'd have a lot of complicated scenarios, just like what's happening in Saskatchewan.

I would like to hear a comment on whether the jurisdiction should maybe be taken to a federal level, given the impact it has around the globe particularly with our trade. Since we're so dependent upon trade, these ports in British Columbia are very important. That's why, despite your legislation, I do agree. We do need good labour relations, and I think they are happening. We have to have this peaceful relationship.

I would like it if you could give us some scenarios on how this is going to affect people. We have to start looking at the economic breakdown. Potash, in my riding, is very big and important. If anybody goes on strike, they won't be essential, but, by God, our province will shut down. I would like you to expand on that, and perhaps that scenario. How would this legislation work with a provincial union breaking down and the feds being called in to take their place?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Who wants to deal with that?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

And if you can't, then I guess you would suggest we bring in more experts.

[Jason Koshman]

Thank you.

Firstly, the movement of the goods and services through the port is a federally regulated undertaking. So when the vessel arrives, is docked, is loaded or unloaded, is put on the rail or a truck, that process is under federal jurisdiction.

I want to pick up on something Mr. Sinclair said, that we could be here all day and talk about this legislation. It is almost an irreconcilable difference, and that's exactly what Sims recognized. And he came up with a compromise solution that was enacted in law. I don't have to list off the times Parliament had to come back and legislate federal undertakings back to work, particularly in the ports and the rail system, prior to this enactment. Since its enactment, it achieved a balance. It achieved a balance recognizing the federal employer's right to operate without undermining the representational capacity of the union.

As I think Mr. Laurin pointed out, a number of applications have gone before the board. Let's let that process work its way out. The experience has been very positive since the enactment pursuant to the Sims task force.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

We're going to now move to our next round. Ms. Dhalla and Mr. Silva are going to split their time. Five minutes.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I just want to thank all of the witnesses we have before us for sharing your experiences and some potential challenges we could face. As my colleague Mr. Savage said, I think it is a very delicate issue. It is a very challenging issue. I know in my own riding of Brampton—Springdale, I've had a chance to meet with many constituents and stakeholders, both from the unions and also employers and owners of small and medium-sized businesses who are fearful and very apprehensive of some of the potential consequences. I know that moving forward, I do look forward to listening and to hearing the witnesses and learning of some potential challenges that have been encountered or that could be, moving forward.

I wanted to touch upon an issue that was highlighted by, I believe, the B.C. council, also by Mr. Koshman as well, and also to get the perspective of labour. That is the issue in regard to permanent workers. It was mentioned, I believe, by Mr. Koshman.

I think you had indicated that the report that was released, the Sims report, had mentioned that employers would perhaps reduce their reliance on permanent workers and move to a model that would include or incorporate temporary workers so that they could bypass the legislation somehow. Has that occurred in B.C.? Could you please expand on that, and could I also get the perspective of labour as well, in terms of employers reducing their reliability on permanent workers, because I think that would have an impact for many Canadians across this country.

[Doug Alley]

That was in our submission. What you'll see is that as employers make their decision on where to expand, they're going to expand in a jurisdiction where they're comfortable that they know they're going to be able to operate. So in B.C., for instance--I'm not going to name names because of confidentiality reasons--they've looked, “Do I expand in B.C. or do I go to Alberta?” Sometimes they've gone to Alberta. Sometimes they've moved to Alberta to avoid our labour legislation. And they do it very quietly. There are no headlines. There's no waving the flag, saying “We don't like section 68 of the B.C. Labour Code, so we're out of here”. It's very quiet and off they go.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

What about the reliance? You had mentioned both in the report and in your commentary about the reliance of employers on permanent workers.

[Doug Alley]

That was a quote, I believe, from the Sims report. And what he was getting at is that some employers will restructure so that their reliance on permanent employees drops, so that if there is a labour disruption they will be in a jurisdiction where they'll be able to continue to operate, and that's where they'll have their permanent....

Let me give you an example. If you're in a financial institution--and I'm not going to try to blame the financial institutions for this--if you had at risk.... I've heard, yes, they're only 1% organized, but that's today; who's to say what could happen down the road? But if they were to get organized, say a VISA centre or something like that in Toronto or wherever else, would the bank--and you'd have to ask them--put their investment at risk, in the case of a strike or lockout, to have a VISA centre go down? It's very easy to put that operation across the border. I think that's what Sims was getting at.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Could we get the perspective of labour? Because I think we're running out of time as well.

[Jim Sinclair]

On the question of permanent employees or part-time employees, there is no doubt a trend across the board, whatever province you're in, to try to get just-in-time workers. Now we have foreign workers coming here into very precarious situations, and that's a problem with our code.

In general, no, I haven't seen that trend. Most employers want good workers to be permanent workers, especially in today's market. Collective agreements in unionized sites, which is what we're talking about, usually have provisions for when you become temporary to permanent, so it's not just the call of the employer, but it's part of the contract.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Sinclair, we probably have a very short time, and I want to apologize, as I didn't want to cut you off.

I think what I was trying to get at is that I think both the B.C. and Quebec models are quite good and serve as an example for us to proceed with this particular legislation. But I need to understand very well the similarities and the differences, and thus far what I can conclude are what the differences are, and I won't outline them again.

Maybe you can further comment, if you'd like, Mr. Sinclair.

[Jim Sinclair]

I have very little further comment. The fundamental difference I see is that under the provincial one, the problems with existing employees are now compounded by the fact that we have 40,000 foreign workers coming to work in our country who don't have the same rights as anybody else, and they are very vulnerable to employer pressure to go to work during a strike. That's the situation. I see that as the basic difference. There may be others, but that's the one I understand to be the basic difference.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

We're going to move to the last questioner. Five minutes, Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

I heard a comment earlier from Mr. Sinclair about the B.C. Liberal government not reinstating the right for replacement workers. I come from a riding in Ontario, and as many know, Ontario went through some difficult economic times in the 1990s when the former premier, Bob Rae, brought in this legislation in Ontario. It's very interesting to note that the Ontario case is different from the B.C. reference, in the sense that when the current Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the provincial Liberal Party, came in, he chose not to bring back this legislation. It is interesting that to keep Ontario's economy strong, a left-of-centre party came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to take Ontario back down that dangerous road.

I wanted to get some comments from Mr. Hattin, if he has any manufacturing perspective on that and whether there are concerns in Ontario that if this legislation were revisited there would be economic repercussions.

And afterwards, Mr. Sinclair, could you give us some guidance on why Mr. McGuinty chose to adopt the same position as Premier Harris on this type of legislation, concluding that it was not in tune with promoting a strong economy?

[Robert Hattin]

Thank you very much.

I'd probably use as a benchmark the automotive model, and Mr. McGuinty has said there are two things they want to grow in Ontario: aerospace and automotive. It's interesting to see that among the people Ontario has attracted, both Honda and Toyota have very good worker relationships, because they have no union. But they have excellent worker relationships, and these are the companies that are growing and thriving. They are the ones where all the money is being invested.

In contrast to them, you look at the other aspects of the more traditional big three, let's say, and ask what the difference is. Now, it could be body design and a whole bunch of other things, but at the end of the day you look at some of the contract differences and how they treat their workers and the mature labour relations of our new Asian partners like Toyota and Honda. When those partners go into places like Simcoe, Ontario, and other places like that, for their spin-off plants, I think that just proves the viability of considering that labour relations model a little differently and doing it on a more mature level, even when we're dealing with multinationals like Honda and Toyota.

The other thing, which has probably been touched on around here, is the ability not only of capital to flee, but also of technology to flee and customers to flee. Businesses, whether they're small or large, are going to go to where there is going to be the assurance of good transactional processes. They don't want to worry, is this port down or can I catch a plane? It's assumed that you are able, because all the mature and established markets have those. I think that's the difference.

I look at those two in the automotive model, at Toyota and some of the others.

[Jim Sinclair]

I think you've got to separate these things. There is confusion between labour relations and this particular act. Labour relations at Toyota may vary from country to country and from place to place. Many of their plants are unionized. I don't believe Toyota sits down and makes a decision about where to invest on whether or not, if eventually they get a union, they can scab the place or not. I know of no experience around the world where they are unionized where they have scabbed them. I don't think it's a practical concern of Toyota one way or the other. That's my opinion.

On the second question, there is a bigger question here about whether we're going to race to the bottom to try to compete or whether we're going to try to raise our standards. There are many other countries in the world I'm sure you'd be interested in studying—outside of Ontario—like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the northern European countries. They have very high unionization rates, of course. They have legislation that says you can't bring in replacement workers. They are very productive. Their investment rate of capital is higher than that of the United States. People have a very high living standard. They don't have the poverty we have. Unions are partners in production, and they sit on the board of directors. Those are the things that are mature.

The other side of it is that replacement workers is really about class war. Really, when you get right down to it, it's that we're going to see who's going to win out here and who's going to lose. And that win-lose idea is really the problem you've got here without this kind of legislation to keep it balanced.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

In terms of these blue-collar jobs that have gone to Ontario, in areas like Alliston in the automotive sector, you mentioned that you don't believe it, that Toyota would never look at this in their investments. Do you have any evidence or information from Toyota that would substantiate that?

[Jim Sinclair]

Those investments were made under Bob Rae as well.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Okay, but is there no information from Toyota about that?

[Jim Sinclair]

The only information I have is that it was their past practice. Also, investments were made under Bob Rae.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I want to take this time to thank all the witnesses for coming. I know you came from long distances--B.C. for the majority of you here today. We realize that this is an important issue, and that is why we've extended the meetings to hear witnesses for another couple of weeks. But we do want to thank you once again for taking the time to be here today, because your travels were a little bit longer than those for the rest of us.

What I'm going to propose right now is that we have a budget for Bill C-257 and then we get directly into the motion and the calendar. What I'm suggesting here is that we've got the budget we need in order to bring the witnesses who are already booked and confirmed; then we're going to deal with the motion, and then my suggestion is that for the calendar we can look at some of the rest of the calendar tomorrow, because some of you have just seen it for the first time. My concern is that we are able to deal with some of the witnesses who are already committed to being here. So if you'd have a look at the....

Yes, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With all due respect, I think it's important to establish the calendar first so that we have an idea of how many meetings we're going to have, how many witnesses, and then we can establish a budget. To approve a budget based on what you have planned is one thing, but it's not the committee's will. So I think we should discuss the calendar, sort that out, and then the budget flows from that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Ms. Davies.

Let's pause for a few minutes.