Human Resources Committee on Jan. 31st, 2007

[Anthony Pollard]

At the end of the day, we believe very firmly that the balance will be offset in a very negative way. You identified the differences between Ontario and Quebec. We see the same thing right across the country in places where—depending upon the level of unionization and so forth.

We just believe very firmly that as a go-forward, this is not the way to go.

[Nick Jennery]

We don't come under the figure...the Canada Labour Code, per se, but I would say there is a balance right now. The track record speaks for itself; both parties are equally motivated to seek a resolution. That's what the track record says.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Bradley.

[David Bradley]

I think that's what we tried to say in our submission as well, that we have a relatively stable labour relations climate in our industry. We said that we don't see the necessity for Bill C-257. We don't know what it would bring to the table to give whatever balance is supposedly missing from the workers' side right now. It's there; it's working.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Another concern I have with this proposed legislation is that, as much as we've referenced the Quebec example, at least the ban on replacement workers in Quebec was detailed in the legislation. There was at least some work put into it. You see some legislation of 90-odd pages, and look at this: it's two pages. It doesn't even begin to deal with the plethora of situations you may have that are off the general plane.

One situation in particular that I'm concerned about is telecommunications. I have it in my notes that the Canada Industrial Relations Board ruled that telecommunication services are not essential to public health and safety within the meaning of the Canada Labour Code. What ramification is this going to have on the services you provide and for the ordinary Canadian? I mean, 911 deals with telecommunications, the RCMP, and the Department of National Defence. What is this going to mean for the ordinary Canadian requiring emergency services? What is this going to mean for your organizations, for services with nuclear power generation stations, hydro-monitoring sites?

It is amazing that it wasn't contemplated in Bill C-257 that this would not be thought of. It seems it was rushed through without ample background and research being put into potential challenges associated with this.

Is there some feedback you can share on the telecommunications side?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Barnes, and then Mr. Massy.

[Peter Barnes]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Certainly I share your concerns, and I think you pointed out the importance of any details in getting into substantive discussion of the issues. As I pointed out earlier, the essential services provisions in the Quebec legislation are some 20 pages long, so there is a lot to the issue.

The other point to make, and I made it earlier but maybe I should make it again, is that when you're talking about essential services with wireless telecommunications, 30 years ago if a line went to the police station or to the hospital, you were fine. But now, hospital workers, whether they are doctors or nurses, ambulance dispatchers or drivers, or policemen, are out in the field and they can be anywhere where other customers are. So the whole network, wherever it is, becomes part of the delivery of essential services.

That's really the issue that we see needs to be explicitly protected, and it's not in Bill C-257, and therefore we have the problems we have with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Massy, a quick final comment.

[Peter Massy]

I have two comments.

First of all, it's not required in Bill C-257 because section 87.4 has it and has laid it out. There are examples of how section 87.4 works.

Second, on the issue of balance, section 87.4 says that we cannot have a labour dispute unless we agree to a maintenance of activities.

The term “replacement workers” is a different kind of language because in that case the union has to prove they've actually hired them for the purposes of undermining the trade union.

So on one hand, we can't even have a labour dispute unless we sign a maintenance of activity. On the other hand, we can't challenge the replacement workers under the existing code unless we first prove the motive of the company. There is a blatant imbalance right there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Massy.

Now we're going to move to Mr. Savage.

Five minutes, please, second round.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I missed the first half-hour of the meeting so I missed your presentations, and I apologize for that. I hope I won't go through ground that's been covered.

Like the other Liberals here, we are new to this committee. We have had to know something about this issue in order to vote on it in the House, to get it to this stage, but we're getting caught up to date on this issue and learning very quickly.

I think it was perhaps the presentation by the Telecommunications Workers Union that referred to the Telus strike. I think I'm the only member of the committee from Atlantic Canada and I'm wondering if anybody is equipped to comment on the strike that happened in Atlantic Canada about two-and-a-half years ago, the Aliant strike.

Mr. Shniad or Mr. Massy, I realize you're in B.C., but I wonder if you have any comment on how this legislation would have played out if it had been in place when the Aliant strike was on in Atlantic Canada.

And if Mr. Barnes or anybody else feels they have any expertise, or an opinion even, I'd be interested in that view as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead, Mr. Massy.

[Peter Massy]

In terms of the Aliant strike, I've been touch with the union representing the employees in Atlantic Canada during the labour dispute. I believe the legislation would have reduced the length of that labour dispute. I know it was very difficult.

I don't know if the committee is aware that combined with their use of replacement workers came the hired firm to protect those replacement workers, and predominantly that was AFI. I know from our discussions with the Atlantic Canada employees that a lot of them suffered severely, to the extent that I believe the Premier of Nova Scotia had to be involved in an attempt to get that thing resolved.

The employees in Atlantic Canada were severely hurt by that labour dispute. It's our belief that had there been anti-scab legislation in place, there wouldn't have been the damage that was done to the employees, to the company, and to the community.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

In your view, would the strike have been shortened with this legislation?

[Peter Massy]

My belief is that you wouldn't have had the strike. As I said earlier, the issue of replacement workers doesn't start when the picket line goes up. When you know you have replacement workers, the company already knows it has an ace in the hole. If it wants to strip a collective agreement, it knows it can use replacement workers to force that. If you don't have that right, you go to the bargaining table with a much different attitude.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Does anybody else want to cast an opinion?

[Peter Barnes]

Mr. Savage, I can't speak for one of my members. I don't have the knowledge of their relationships with the union, so unfortunately I can't help you.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That's fair enough.

I'm looking at the Sims report from 1999. They did look at the issue of replacement workers, as you know, and I want to read something because you mentioned, Mr. Massy, that before the strike or lockout even happens, things can be done to prevent that from happening, such as in the case of the Aliant strike.

The report on page 130 says the following:Replacement workers can be necessary to sustain the economic viability of an enterprise in the face of a harsh economic climate and unacceptable union demands. It is important in a system of free collective bargaining that employers maintain that option, unrestrained by any blanket prohibition. If this option is removed, employers will begin to structure themselves to reduce their reliance on permanent workforces for fear of vulnerability, to the detriment of both workers and employers alike.

I'd like your views on that.

[Peter Massy]

When you look at the legislation in B.C. and Quebec, I don't think you'll see that has happened, and they've had anti-scab or anti-replacement worker legislation for quite some time.

The issue of what's in the current code as it relates to the Sims study deals with the fact that the union has to prove the company is hiring them for the purpose of undermining the trade union. That's a tall task you've put to the unions in the federal legislation. You can only prove it when the strike actually starts, not before, and by that time it's too late.

When union members go on the street, they don't get paid. They lose their houses, they get in debt, and it has a tremendous impact on their families. That is where the balance is. Employees, when they walk out the door or are locked out, suffer.

Employers have managers who can do bargaining unit work during a labour dispute. That's already there. Telus had 8,000 managers; why didn't they use them? Why did they use call centres in the Philippines and India, call centres that still exist today, to do that work? It undermined the trade union and ended in a devastating four-month labour dispute. There was no need for it, and the legislation would have stopped it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

We're going to move to Mr. Lessard for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank our guests for being here. First, I would tell you that we're trying as hard as possible to understand the bill's impact so that we can make the best decisions on recommendations to the House of Commons. Perhaps it would be a good idea to do a summing up, that is to say to try, first of all, to distinguish between what is important in the debate and what is not.

Furthermore, when statistics from Quebec are presented, it should always be said how we compare. Quebec has one of the highest unionization rates in the country. Consequently, there's necessarily a larger number of strike days in Quebec. When citing examples in communications or transportation, we have to know under what jurisdiction the union falls: federal or provincial. In general, communications in Quebec are under federal jurisdiction. Every time a dispute has arisen, there have been lengthy strikes, and violence because strike breakers, replacement workers, were used, which wasn't done in other sectors.

Personally, I've worked on both sides of the fence. I've been a union worker and I was also an employer, for seven years, of 120 persons. Subsequently, I employed 20 persons for 11 years. As a unionist employer, I experienced a three-month strike. We were in a situation where we had to provide services because there were a lot of proceedings before the courts that we could not disregard. That means that, under the legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers, we were allowed to fill all positions.

In the hotel industry, on the other hand, there was no union. As the employer, I felt that, if there had been a union and people had gone out on strike, I would have been able to replace them. It seems to me that I would then have broken the relationship of domination.

I mean to tell you that I have no bias. Of course, we've introduced the bill based on the Quebec experience, which I think is highly conclusive, but this bill should take into account not only Quebec, but all of Canada as well.

I'm going to ask you the same question I put to other people yesterday. Apart from apprehended situations, are there any actual situations that should deter us from passing this bill?

[Peter Barnes]

If I correctly understand the distinction you're drawing between the apprehended situation and the actual situation, it's a bit difficult to answer because we're in a hypothetical situation. We have a bill that hasn't yet been passed. We don't actually know what its impact will be. All we can do is apprehend its impact.

In our view, knowing the importance of our services and their influence on the economy and society, we fear that these services will be disrupted and that essential services and emergency services will be reduced or seriously disabled.

I don't have any actual examples because we haven't had a situation in which legislation of this kind applied to telecommunications. So all I can tell you is that we think that could happen. We have to exercise our judgment as best we can. We're well aware of the growing importance of telecommunications. It's no longer one person in 10 who has and uses a cellular telephone; it's the majority of people, and in essential services, it's everywhere. So that's really what concerns us.

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

Is the answer the same for each of you?

[Nick Jennery]

This is a very quick statement. What I would say is that my industry, the grocery industry, is hugely reliant on rail and interprovincial trucking. Because we have no inventory, if something happens to the supply chain we have a problem in feeding Canadians. That's really what it comes down to.

It may be a little dramatic, but there is no inventory in the supply chain. We have examples of when we've experienced that. As my partner just put it, it's not necessarily about strikes or blockades—call it what you will—but very quickly we have a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard. That's all the time we have.

We're now going to move to Mr. Martin for five minutes.