Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec is pleased to be able to file a formal notice concerning Bill C-257, which is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We believe that it is imperative to submit to Canadian parliamentarians the opinion of our federation and our members concerning the appropriateness and scope of this proposed amendment to the Canada Labour Code.
First of all, we would like to remind people that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over labour, and this jurisdiction confers upon the government and its agencies a great responsibility with respect to decisions that may affect Canadian industry's capacity to perform, to remain competitive and productive, and to meet the challenges of globalization and the economy. As it happens, a current provision of the Code already states that an employer may not use replacement workers for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. It nevertheless has the flexibility required to use replacement workers to meet operational responsibilities.
We further note that the Canadian Labour Relations Board has never, since 1999, been required to rule or take action against an employer with regard to this issue. From this standpoint, Bill C-257 does not address any immediate imperatives or any problems that have recurring effects. This legislative measure is rightly of concern to employers, who are under federal authority for labour relations purposes, and it should also be a serious concern to all companies located in Canada. This amendment to the Act constitutes a real threat to the flow of Canadian trade activities and could have a major impact on the financial health, if not the long-term viability, of many companies across Canada.
At the moment, only two Canadian provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, have prohibited the hiring of replacement workers in the event of a strike or lockout. The reason these provinces did so was to reduce the risk of violence on picket lines and to potentially encourage speedier labour dispute resolution. However, from the strict statistical standpoint, if the situation in Ontario, a province that has no legislation in this area, is compared to the situation in Quebec and British Columbia, there is nothing to indicate that there are solid grounds for Bill C-257.
There is no evidence that legislative measures concerning replacement workers reduce the number of work stoppages. Indeed, according to a survey recently conducted by Human Resources and Social Development Canada's Workplace Information Directorate and Statistics Canada in 2005, Quebec had proportionately twice as many work stoppages as Ontario, and more than four times as many work stoppages as industries under federal jurisdiction. Nor is there any evidence that legislative measures for replacement workers reduce the average length of work stoppages. For example, the same survey revealed that despite the Quebec legislation, the average length of work stoppages in that province increased from 37 days in 1975, 1976 and 1977, to approximately 47 days by 2003, 2004 and 2005. Furthermore, the length of work stoppages is consistently longer in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada.
In fact, several university studies on the impact of anti-strikebreaking provisions on the frequency and length of strikes have shown that anti-strikebreaking provisions tend to increase the likelihood and length of work stoppages. Allow me to mention a few examples.
The Landeo, Nikitin study in 2005 stated that the availability of replacement workers reduced the likelihood of a strike. The study was on the education sector.
The 2005 Singh, Zinni Jain study said that the potential impact of replacement workers depended on various factors, including the type of industry in which the employer was engaged, but that these workers could cause antagonistic union-management relations.
The 1999 Cramton, Gunderson and Tracy study found that the average length of a strike was over 32 days in jurisdictions where there were anti-strikebreaking provisions and that the probability of a strike was 12% higher.
The 1996 Budd study said that the average length of a strike was more than 27 days and that the probability of a strike was 5% higher.
The 1990 Gunderson, Melino study said that the average length of a strike was more than seven-days longer.
The 1989 Gunderson, Kervin, Reid study said that the anti-strikebreaking provisions in Quebec had led to an increase in the number of strikes.
The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec believes that the enactment of this amendment to the Canada Labour Code would not serve anyone's interest. In fact, it appears to concede an obvious benefit to the union side by blocking a company's operational capacity when there is a strike or a lockout. However, we believe that the scope of the amendments under review is even more threatening to the whole Canadian economy.
The Canadian government and Canadian parliamentarians surely need no reminding that we are living in 2007 in a context of global trade and stiff competition. Even a brief absence from a marketplace or a loss in productivity, for however short a time, leaves firms vulnerable to fierce foreign competition that is often not governed by labour laws as highly developed as ours. From this standpoint, the case of major infrastructure industries is particularly revelatory with respect to the potentially harmful economic consequences of such a legislative measure. The industry is one that offers a range of services that most other companies and businesses depend upon.
For example, a work stoppage and an interruption in a telecommunications industry's digital transmission line service or operations has a direction impact on the financial transaction capacity of Canadian businesses and citizens, and has repercussions on everyone's lives. Canada is a generous country that has worked for a just society ever since it was founded. However, our productivity remains deficient in several respects. Our competitiveness is limited by a set of factors that increase our production costs and fail to attract foreign investors. The passage of Bill C-257 would not reduce violence on the picket lines because there are many different factors involved in violence, most of which have to do with the discipline exercised by the unions themselves over their members.
Nor will it shorten labour disputes, because there is nothing to indicate that this ever happened in Quebec or British Columbia. However, there is a risk that it could jeopardize the ability of industry and companies to maintain a minimum capacity required for them to remain a presence in domestic and international markets and preserve long-term jobs. It will also definitely further politicize labour disputes by involving the House of Commons much more often in matters of return-to-work legislation.
To conclude, I would say that under the circumstances, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec would like to add its voice to the many organizations, industries and companies that are concerned about Canada's economic health and that are asking you to withdraw the bill. We are in favour of strengthening our ability to face the new challenges of globalization and we believe that Canadian parliamentarians are in the best position to understand the nature of the challenges we have to meet.
Thank you once again for having invited me and for having listened to me.