Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for hearing us today.
The Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations is an umbrella group of all of the provincial human resources associations in Canada. Those provincial associations have members numbering over 30,000.
Human resource professionals take a practical and, I would say, often non-ideological approach to issues of labour relations and human resource questions. It is in that vein that we're here today.
Before I begin, very quickly I'll say that I can imagine it is fatiguing for you to hear the same arguments repeated from different sources, over and over again. You have our sympathies on that. We'll try to resist the urge to do the same.
But I will offer this thought, which is that the fact that so many parties have stepped up so vigorously with such an intense view on the bill, although fatiguing to listen to, nonetheless speaks I think to a feeling about the bill that is deeply felt and that frankly involves concerns that are very broadly held.
In that vein we go to a couple of key points I want to make, and then I'm going to turn to my friend, Mr. Robin Rensby from the Federal Bridge Corporation to complete our submission, if I may.
Essentially, this bill touches at least three concerns: those of employers; those of workers; and those of the broader Canadian public. You've heard a long list of business and employer concerns about the bill.
If I were to reach for one principal concern, it would be that employers will be rendered unable to operate their businesses and to deliver services to their customers through their normal bargaining unit member employees if the bill becomes law. That's what the bill says.
Essentially what it means is, in a lockout or a strike, one of the parties will be rendered incapable of operating, of making a living.
If you want to know how perverse that seems to those of us who are labour law practitioners and those of us in the human resources field--I'm a lawyer and I do labour law--consider this alternative example. Consider a bill that does the reverse, a bill that says that during a strike or lockout, management can engage alternative replacement labour, but the members of the bargaining unit are not permitted to make a living anywhere else during a strike or lockout. If that strikes you as an absurdity, it should, because it is absurd. And by the same point of view, it's absurd to say that employers should be incapable of operating their businesses during a strike or lockout.
The purpose of a strike or lockout, frankly, is to inflict pain and discomfort on both sides of the bargaining equation--so that they learn that the extreme demands they have are not reasonable, are not practical--and to bring those parties together. To force them to see the light, they need to cooperate. That's why we have a system of labour interruption in our labour law. This bill will profoundly alter that, and I would say, essentially, subject one party to all the pain.
We have a bit of a rule when it comes to any kind of bargain, which is that a good deal is one that both parties feel regret about; both parties suffer a little.
If you look at the opposing sides of the argument you've been listening to, I would submit to you that only one side is expressing concern and discomfort about this, and one party doesn't seem to be feeling any pain at all. That's telling, and it's telling because in our labour law tradition in this country, we build labour law the way we build contracts, the way we build collective agreements, the way you build legislation among yourselves: through deliberation, through research, through consideration, through negotiation. And then you land at a point where you have enough of a consensus to move forward. In our respectful view, one of the deeply troubling aspects of this bill is that that dimension of its development isn't there.
I teach a class at Queen's University Law School. I asked my students this morning whether they had any questions or issues about this bill. One of the students asked me--and I thought it was one of the best questions I've heard--what problem this law is solving. That was the question I was asked by my student, and I thought, what a great question.
Exactly what problem, what crisis, what emergency is being solved in labour relations in the federal sphere by this proposed bill? I can tell you, honestly--although I am a management-side lawyer and that may colour your view of what I say--I don't see that crisis. I don't know where that is. I'm not aware of those emergencies.
So it is hard for me to understand why we are rushing headlong into amendments to a law that works so well for so many parties and that is truly balanced.
I would submit to the committee to ask yourselves the question, exactly what problem is this bill supposed to solve? Then a corollary question that may be more potent is, exactly what problems will it create? You've been hearing a lot about that.
Our quarrel is largely with the process around this. We don't believe it reflects the traditions of Canadian labour law. We don't believe the changes substantively reflect our traditions of balance either. I would respectfully suggest to the committee that as an example of how to build labour law in this country, as an example of our tradition at work, there's a fresh one in my hand. It's called “Fairness at Work: Federal Labour Standards for the 21st Century”, and it's the product of Professor Harry Arthurs, who led a task force appointed by the previous government. It was delivered to the current government in October of last year. It consulted with all the stakeholders on key issues of employment standards in the federal sphere. It is a great product. It has the consensus support of all parties. Government, labour, and management that were involved in this through the task force yielded these results, which they generally support. That's the way we've built labour law in this country.
Mr. Chair, we appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to you on this, and if my friend, Mr. Rensby, could have a few moments, I'd be grateful for that. Thank you for your attention, and if we can offer any other answers to questions you have, we'd be glad to do it.
Mr. Rensby.