Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
You really sadden me because you seem to be educated and informed people, and you're taking part in the fear campaign launched by Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the Minister of Labour, who has even raised the scarecrow of the 911 services, whereas we know perfectly well that, in Quebec, they fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, that they've been subject to the anti-strike breaking law for 30 years and that no disaster has ever occurred.
I'm disappointed and saddened to see that you're taking part in the fear campaign of a politician who didn't know what he was saying. You really disappoint me. You also disappoint me because I don't get the impression that you've read the Canada Labour Code. Perhaps your researchers have read it and not told you the whole story, but I'm going to tell you what's in the Canada Labour Code. You'll see I'm good at giving lessons.
Section 87.4 reads, and I quote:
87.4 (1) During a strike or lockout 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.
Mr. Barnes, all the apprehensions that you might have had go up in smoke. Your argument no longer stands.
Moreover, new subsections 94(2.3) and (2.4) of Bill C-257 state, in the French version, which is clearer than in the English version, that the application of subsection (2.1) does not have the effect of preventing the employer from taking any necessary measures to avoid the destruction of the employer's property or serious damage to that property. Here we're perhaps talking about food and refrigerated trucks.
Incidentally, subsections 94(2.3) and (2.4) are virtually identical to what's written in the Quebec Labour Code, apart from a few words. The spirit is exactly the same and the clauses are identical.
That being said, you'll understand that I'm also disappointed because representatives of the Canadian Bankers Association have appeared and taken part in the management fear campaign. However, it was realized that fewer than one percent of those employees were unionized. Consequently, the apprehended disaster didn't occur.
Representatives of the Railway Association of Canada also said that it was appalling, that they couldn't support the anti-strike breaking legislation because this was a matter of public safety across Canada. Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code comes into play, but there's also the fact that, in any case, your speech is more anti-union than opposed to Bill C-257 since most of you have employees who aren't replaceable.
I'm thinking of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, for example. What truckers can you hire during a strike? How long do you have to take training to be a truck driver? It takes months. You can't replace a truck driver like that, on the spur of the moment. If you have managers who are qualified to drive trucks, then you can send them to do the work.
There's still section 87.4. If the public safety is in jeopardy, then you can intervene and ask to negotiate essential services with your unions, which most unions do very willingly.
This is so true, essential services are so important that essential services legislation was passed in Quebec in 1975, while the anti-strike breaking legislation was passed in 1977. There's no causal relationship. It's not because there's anti-strike breaking legislation that you need essential services legislation. Quebec's essential services legislation was introduced because public sector employees, particularly those in the health sector, now had the right to strike, and, as responsible unionized employees, they asked the government to pass legislation overseeing essential services.
A little earlier, Mr. Bradley, you said that, in the event of a long strike, a business would close. No, in the event of a long strike, the business would negotiate, and that's what balance is. Balance doesn't mean that the employer can do what it wants; it doesn't mean that the employer continues to produce and continues to have revenue and negotiate with its left hand, as Telus did. They pretended to negotiate with the employees and continued hiring replacement workers. That's not balance.
In a labour dispute, balance means that the employer deprives itself of part of its production. It can still continue producing by relying on its managers; let's be clear on that. It's deprived of a portion of its revenue, unfortunately, but the unionized worker is in an even worse situation, because he's deprived of his job and all his income. I challenge you. A little earlier, I heard the argument that employees can find another job. Very few find other jobs, particularly when this happens in remote communities. It's very hard to find another job.
I can also tell you about Quebec's experience. Quebec has had anti-strike breaking legislation for 30 years, and it's been tested. None of the disasters that you apprehend have occurred; the economy hasn't collapsed, nor have small and medium-size enterprises, as you write in your brief, Mr. Barnes.
