Human Resources Committee on Jan. 31st, 2007

[Nick Jennery]

I would just add that the Canada Labour Code and the powers of the Labour Relations Board, with all of its protection, works. As we're hitting our demographics where there is increasingly a shortage labour, the system works.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

It's not so much a question to the witnesses, it's really to you, Mr. Chair. We have, I believe, on February 13, technical briefings coming before this committee. I've raised a series of questions, and did even yesterday, about the differences between the present bill and those of both the Quebec and the B.C. legislation. I believe Mr. Comartin, and the NDP members of our committee, also raised issues about whether we can have the particular information.

I went on my own to ask the Library of Parliament for some information, for the comparisons, because the witnesses keep on raising the fact—especially the ones who are against the legislation, and I've heard comments from the other side as well—that it's not the same as the Quebec legislation. I'm not a legal expert, and neither I think is anybody here on this committee, and I would rely very heavily on those technical briefings that would come before committee.

The briefing that I got from the Library of Parliament, unfortunately, does not answer those questions, so I was a little bit disappointed that I didn't get my questions answered correctly. If we're going to proceed to clause-by-clause of this bill and vote accordingly, then when people state the fact that it's not the same thing, I want to make sure that they point out to me where it's not the same thing. If it is the same thing, then I want to at least have a third opinion that in fact it is the same, and I have not gotten that.

So I'm hoping that by February 13 we'll have that information before our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mr. Silva. We'll certainly talk to the clerk and the researchers so that, when we get the departments in, they can have that information ready for us.

We're now going to move to our last questioner.

Mr. Hiebert, you have five minutes.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There has been some discussion among committee members today about whether or not section 87.4 protects telecommunications as an essential service. I just think it's important for all members to know that the board itself has ruled that telecommunications is not an essential service. The concerns we've been hearing from the telecom industry today about the impact it would have on the safety of Canadians is very real. It's not hypothetical.

It's also important to focus on what the impact on ordinary Canadians would be if this legislation were to pass. As an aside, it's ironic that this committee is now looking at this legislation for the tenth time. It has been rejected nine times before. It's hard to imagine how things have changed enough that we should now adopt this legislation.

I want to focus again on how ordinary Canadians would be affected. At the end of the day, we have to think in terms of the global impact on Canadians in general, as well as on labour peace.

What I've been hearing from people like you, Mr. Jennery, is that if there's a strike and it's not even in your industry—it's not even a grocery strike or it's not even your unionized workers who are striking, it's some other section, some other industry that has a hiccup—then in terms of labour relations, the consequences for your industry are tremendous. They're indirect, but they have a direct effect nonetheless.

WIth a business background, I understand the whipsaw effect that can occur when those kinds of hiccups are introduced into a just-in-time supply chain, and how the cost to consumers and to business and to employees is tremendous. I would like the members of the associations here to comment on and elaborate on my general question: what are the ordinary consequences to Canadians in terms of higher costs, loss of jobs, loss of emergency services, and those sorts of things?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Bradley.

[David Bradley]

I'll respond, if that's all right. I'll be quick.

The current Canadian government and the previous governments in the last ten years, but particularly in the last six years, have been spending billions of dollars to try to ensure the reliability and predictability of the supply chain, whether it has meant investing in borders, in highways, in intermodal facilities, or those sorts of things.

I would just repeat the point that Mr. Jennery has been making quite well, that anything that impacts upon the reliability and predictability of the supply chain risks direct investment in Canada, risks goods being produced somewhere else, because we can't deliver. That's the impact on ordinary Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Anyone else?

Mr. Barnes.

[Peter Barnes]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Hiebert.

I'd just like to give you a very concrete example. Cellphones are an everyday reality. More than 18 million Canadians have cellphones. We have survey information with two vital statistics. Every year, there are more than 6 million calls made by cellphone users to 911, and over half of those 18 million people call emergency numbers during the course of a year.

So the plain, ordinary cellphone is a very vital link, for those 18 million Canadians who have a cellphone, to emergency services. If you weaken that link through a lack of ability to maintain and serve, you clearly have a problem for those people. That clearly is an impact for ordinary Canadians.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Jennery, do you want to elaborate?

[Nick Jennery]

I think it was articulated well.

Again, we're in a competitive marketplace. In our own situation, we have a newcomer that's four times the size of the entire Canadian grocery industry combined. They're very good operators, so cost-efficiency is everything. What comes with cost efficiency is that you take your inventory out of the supply chain, and you become very dependent on having that infrastructure, which is complex, and hopefully as reliable as it can be.

That's what makes or breaks your interaction with the consumer. And that's what I'm most concerned about.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

So we're not just talking about people not having milk and bread and eggs on the shelf two days after a strike emerges in another industry. We're talking about the loss of an entire industry due to foreign competition.

[Nick Jennery]

We order all products pretty much the same way, through telecom data systems. If somebody has an inventory of a product or if there's an inventory of, say, a less perishable product, then the one that is perishable, for which perhaps there isn't any sort of inventory or safety stock, is the one that suffers.

Consumers migrate. They migrate from stores and they migrate from categories. That's real lost business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

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

Once again, I want to thank all the witnesses appearing via teleconference. I want to thank you gentlemen from Vancouver for being here today, and all the witnesses here.

[Peter Massy]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We need to get into some committee business, but we want to give the witnesses a chance just to step back from the table first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

On the agenda, we have committee business to take care of. If we're going to have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow, we have to elect a first vice-chair. Pursuant to Standing Order 106, what I'm going to do is leave the floor to the clerk of the committee.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Christine Lafrance]

Pursuant to Standing Order 106, the committee will now proceed with the election of the first vice-chair, who must be, pursuant to the Standing Orders, a member of the official opposition.

Now I'm ready to receive motions for the position of Vice-Chair.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Clerk, I would like to propose the name of Ruby Dhalla as vice-chair of the committee.

[The Clerk]

It is moved by Mr. Silva that Ms. Dhalla be elected first Vice-Chair of the committee.

Are there any further motions? Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Clerk]

I declare the motion carried. Ms. Dhalla is duly elected first Vice-Chair of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Now that we have a vice-chair, we can have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow morning. Nine o'clock is the proposed time to have that.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I guess we're going to get into a conversation about subcommittee stuff, but I want to move a motion.

I'm thinking that this is a large committee and that we have lots of different things that we're discussing here, obviously, like labour, HR, seniors, and social development. What I want to move is a motion that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be composed of the chair, two members of the Liberal caucus, one member of the Bloc Québécois caucus, one member of the New Democratic Party caucus, and one member of the Conservative caucus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have a motion on the floor. Is there any discussion on that?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I'm just wondering if there is any standing order on that particular subject.