Human Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, I call the meeting to order.

I just want to say thanks to the witnesses for being here today, and I apologize for any challenges we had by changing the room. We may be missing a witness or two as a result of the room change, but we do need to get going so we can make sure we have enough time to answer questions.

We had a steering meeting, which we'll discuss a little more afterwards, but one of the suggestions that came out of the steering meeting earlier today was that we try to limit speeches to a couple of minutes and get to some questions. I know we're not going to be able to convince our witnesses to change their minds at all, so we want to get to our questions as quickly as possible.

Once again, you can have some preamble, but the witnesses are here, and we're here to ask them questions. Try to make the best use of that. This was a suggestion of the steering committee, so I will just pass it along.

What we'll do is start now with Mr. Stewart-Patterson.

We have seven minutes each. We will start round one with seven minutes for questions and answers; round two with five minutes; and, with any luck, round three, which will be a little bit shorter, with five minutes as well.

Welcome, Mr. Stewart-Patterson. We'll have your seven-minute opening, please. I will let you know when you have one minute left.

[David Stewart-Patterson, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Council of Chief Executives]

Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today. I say that as more than the usual pleasantry because I know that before Christmas there was some doubt as to how long this committee was going to give consideration to this bill. I do, therefore, want to thank very sincerely both current and former members of the committee for recognizing that this is a bill that has some broad strategic implications and deserves a thorough examination.

I think other witnesses have addressed the issue of how a ban on replacement workers affects the bargaining process, and I know you've heard a variety of evidence: does it make strikes longer or shorter, more frequent, less frequent, more violent, less violent?

With your permission, I'm going to take a step back from that debate and look at the impact of the bill on the Canadian economy as a whole. I will start with one basic proposition: that the essential impact of a legal ban on the use of replacement workers is to increase the bargaining power of unions in the affected sectors. I'm not making a statement about the philosophical issue of whether workers deserve more bargaining power or not. I'm simply stating that such legislation does give them more leverage at the bargaining table than they enjoy today. I think it's therefore reasonable to suggest that passing this bill will lead to greater financial gains for affected workers in future negotiations. If that wasn't the case, why would unions want the bill? Whether these gains are larger or smaller, the question then is, who pays the price?

Companies in federally regulated sectors have customers across the country. In some cases they serve households and individuals and in others they provide vital services to business. Some of them obviously do both. In all cases higher costs for labour will be passed on, either to customers in the form of higher prices or to investors through lower returns. To the extent higher costs for labour are passed on to consumers, the issue is whether government should be intervening to help union members in these industries get more money at the expense of all other Canadians.

As a matter of social justice, for instance, should all families pay more for a telephone because government has decided that workers in this particular sector deserve higher pay? Higher costs could also be passed on to business customers. In this case the issue is slightly different; it's whether government should be intervening to give an additional advantage to workers in one group of industries at the expense of workers and investors in another industry. Does it serve the national interest, for instance, if higher costs for railway transportation have to be borne by Canadian manufacturers or retailers?

You may wish to argue that the gains for workers advantaged by this bill would not lead to higher costs but rather would come entirely at the expense of profits, of returns to investors. Academic studies do show the direct link between replacement worker bans and business investment. I note in particular the 2004 study by John Budd and Yijiang Wang of the University of Minnesota that found that strike replacement bans in Canada led directly to reduced business investment. They noticed, I might add, an especially significant drop in investment in the construction sector where banning replacement workers had the same impact as an economic recession.

Such studies aside, it's stating the obvious to say that whatever the rate of return on any potential investment, if that rate of return drops, investors are less likely to dive in and commit their money. You may argue that the impact on rate of return on federally regulated sectors from this bill would be rather small. Well, perhaps it might, but we live in an era in which competition for investment worldwide is fierce.

Canada, I would suggest, is already at a disadvantage, on several fronts. Canada's tax policies impose one of the highest marginal effective rates on new business investment in the industrialized world. New security measures in the United States are making travel within North America more difficult, and that's making Canada a less attractive place for a growing business with international customers to set up shop. The rise in global demand for energy and other resources is good news for western Canada, but the resulting higher prices are hurting manufacturers, which are largely located in Ontario and Quebec. The rise in the value of the Canadian dollar in recent years--largely resource connected--has added to this pressure. And of course suppliers of goods and services alike are facing intense new competition as emerging powers such as China and India transform patterns of trade and investment worldwide. One result is that Canada's manufacturing sector has already lost hundreds of thousands of jobs as companies faced with all of this either go out of business, invest in new technologies that replace labour, or shift production offshore.

So far our economy as a whole has been able to absorb these shocks and keep overall unemployment low, but Canada faces a real challenge here--a challenge to figure out where we want to compete in the world, what kinds of work we want, and what standard of living associated with that work are Canadian workers today and our children going to enjoy in the decades ahead.

What I've pointed out here is that we're already in a situation that gives investors--whether they're Canadian investors or foreign investors doesn't make much difference--some powerful reasons not to invest in this country.

We also are engaged in a very important debate, I have to add, about how to address the issue of climate change. A lot of Canadians consider that very important, and quite rightly so. On this issue, parties on both sides of the House have indicated that the solution, in one way or another, is going to involve new regulations and other measures that could significantly raise the cost of doing business in this country, as well as the cost of living for Canadian families, I might add. Yet here we are contemplating another piece of legislation at this committee whose essential impact will be to make it still more expensive to do business in this country and less attractive to invest.

My point is—and I will close on this, Mr. Chair—that whatever you believe about the merits of giving organized labour a long-cherished weapon at the bargaining table, you cannot consider this bill in isolation. When Canadians next go to the polls, whenever that may be, they will not be casting a ballot on the basis of this issue, and certainly not this issue alone. They will be considering which party to trust with the job of guiding our economy through some complex and daunting global challenges. They'll be asking each of you, in every party, what you have done and what you will do to help our economy to grow, to help communities attract more jobs and good jobs, and to help sustain the public services that those jobs and their incomes pay for through their taxes. Frankly, if you vote for this bill, you will be hurting that cause and not helping it.

Mr. Chair, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart-Patterson.

Now we're going to move to the Retail Council of Canada.

Ms. Furlong, you have seven minutes, please.

[Kim Furlong, Director, Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Kim Furlong, and I am the director of federal government relations for the Retail Council of Canada.

Founded in 1963, RCC is the voice of retail in this country. We are a not-for-profit association representing about 40,000 stores of all retail formats, including independent merchants, regional and national retail chains, and online merchants.

With annual sales of close to $400 billion, the retail industry is the second-largest employer in this country. In 2005, retailers injected more than $7 billion dollars into the economy, through store design, construction, technology, and telecommunications. Indeed, retail is one of the most dynamic economic players in our economy.

On behalf of our members, we'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to share our views before you today. We, too, had some concerns before Christmas that we wouldn't have a chance to appear, so I thank you.

Our perspective is anchored in the ramifications of the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code for those who rely on the products and services of federally regulated employers. RCC believes the economic impact of the proposed changes will be extremely damaging to the Canadian economy. In an interconnected world, where economies of scale rely on the ability to move goods quickly and to interface with technology, the thought of having transport or telecommunications services in Canada suspended, even for a short time, is very alarming.

Supply chain logistics have evolved significantly over the last fifteen years. The days of big inventories in warehouses are no longer. Business models such as just-in-time delivery and lean production have become the cornerstones of our economy.

The ability to move goods efficiently is essential to Canada's competitiveness as a trading nation. The Vancouver port dispute is a haunting case in point. The disruption caused by the job actions of independent truckers in the summer of 2005 was devastating to our sector: containers just sitting there and the supply chain completely disrupted, costing the Canadian economy untold millions of dollars. This was one event, in one location, and relatively minor compared to what would happen should Bill C-257 become reality, and the cost was tremendous.

Aside from perishable goods and items that didn't make it onto shelves, such as back-to-school items, the cost of this labour dispute was far more significant than what was not consumed. In fact, the strike caused a loss of business for the city of Vancouver and its port workers. Because of the uncertainty created by the dispute, some importers, including several Retail Council of Canada members, have chosen to diversify their import routing and have altered shipping patterns by using other entry points, such as the east coast.

Members of this committee must consider the impact that a labour dispute under the guidelines of Bill C-257 could have on the economy of a region and on the workers in the long term. In fact, Bill C-257 threatens Canada's competitiveness. In a world where Canada is an exporting country and competing for a greater share of world trade, it seems nonsensical to implement legislation that brings instability to the investment and business climate. Canada's ability to attract foreign direct investment is not to be taken for granted, especially when we're competing against giants such as India and China, which are leading the way.

In addition, and very importantly, the traditional argument that our proximity to the U.S. market makes Canada a prime location to invest could easily be refuted if our labour laws were to interfere with the free flow of goods. Canada's competitive advantage lies in our ability to deploy just-in-time delivery to the U.S. market. Should airlines or railways be out of operation, this competitive advantage would be significantly damaged.

In addition to these transportation issues, a breakdown, even minute, in the telecommunications system would have a direct impact on the retail industry. Canadians are the world's top debit card users, and the vast majority of retail purchases are card payments. A slowdown in the processing of card payments would mean loss of sales for our members. A breakdown in the system would mean a slowdown in the Canadian economy.

It has been clearly demonstrated over the last few years that the dynamism of the North American economy is being fuelled in part by consumption. Canadian consumers expect to be able to have access to their bank accounts at all times, and they rely on credit for many of their routine purchases. An inability to approve a card transaction means no sale.

Again, we urge members of this committee to think about the larger picture and to consider what these changes to the Canada Labour Code could have on Canadians in general.

Having clearly defined the possible risks associated with the proposed legislative changes included in Bill C-257, we now turn our attention to the raison d'etre of this bill.

After reviewing the recent history of federally regulated labour disputes, RCC does not understand the need for these changes. The proposed changes eliminate the delicate balance that was reached with the adoption of the Sims report in 1999. The report was the product of an extensive, tripartite, cross-Canada consultation led by Andrew Sims, and was assisted by a panel of experts appointed by the federal minister of that time to bring recommendations to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code.

The expert panel in its report entitled Seeking a Balance, examined the issue of replacement workers and concluded that, and I quote:

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 their permanent workforces for fear of vulnerability, to the detriment of both workers and employers alike.

The report also recommends that:

There should be no general prohibition on the use of replacement workers.

Where the use of replacement workers in a dispute is demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the union's representative capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, this should be declared an unfair labour practice.

In the event of a finding of such an unfair labour practice, the Board should be given specific remedial power to prohibit the further use of replacement workers in the dispute.

The evidence shows that the 1999 changes have brought a balance to the labour climate. In 2005 and 2006, 97% of all collective bargaining agreements under federal jurisdiction were signed without work stoppage.

In conclusion, in light of the fact that this is a very divisive issue, and that the Sims report recommended against the inclusion of a ban on replacement workers, and that federally regulated sectors were chosen and put under federal jurisdiction because of their strategic importance to the functioning of our nation, the eagerness of proponents of Bill C-257 to shift the fine balance that was reached in 1999 is puzzling. The RCC believes that at a time when Canada faces tremendous pressure to be competitive with regard to the rest of the world and we need to enhance our productivity, the thought of implementing legislation that would send a signal to foreign investors that our key infrastructure industries could be hijacked at any moment by a labour disruption is not key to improving Canadian prosperity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Furlong.

We're now going to move to the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations. Joining us today are Mr. Law and Mr. Rensby.

Gentlemen, you have seven minutes, please.

[David Law, Chair, Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations]

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.

[Robin Rensby, Senior Director, Human Resources, Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations]

Thank you. I will be very brief. I echo David's comments that we appreciate that you have allowed us to come before you today.

My perspective is somewhat narrower, and it is that of an employer who has bargaining unit members who may well be implicated in this whole process. So I would start by saying I support David's comments about the need for rigorous consultation and analysis of the whole framework of labour relations in this country before moving forward. In Bill C-257, it seems to me, one has to ask the question about things like essential services—I know you have heard about these from other people—the requirement to bargain in good faith, and the potential for upward pressure on public sector wage rates. To me, it comes down to a very simple question: how does this bill make the framework better? When I read it, I can't find a good answer to that question.

I would point out that I see a number of references to the provincial models, and I would echo some of the comments you heard earlier today that the provincial models may not be appropriate. Some of the comments say those bills were passed in provincial jurisdictions and days lost to strike went down, but I haven't seen anything that talks about cause and effect. Would an employer capitulate and sign an agreement they might not otherwise sign in the absence of this kind of legislation? I would argue that may well be the case.

In the interests of time I'm going to cut to the only image I would ask you to consider. In our 2005-06 annual report we reported that there were about 140 million transits across our bridges in the greater Montreal area. As I read section 87.4, the definition of essential services, it is arguably the case that we could not define those bridges as an essential service. While it may sound somewhat circular, we might then close the bridges in the best interests of public safety. I would just ask you to keep in mind an image of 140 million transits per year and the bridges in the greater Montreal area closed. If this is a result of Bill C-257, I fail to see that it's a good result.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Law and Mr. Rensby.

We're now going to move over to Mr. Hogue.

[Bernard Hogue, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Hogue.

We're now going to start the first round of questioning with the opposition party, the Liberals.

Mr. Silva, you have seven minutes.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming forward before the committee.

First of all, many of the witnesses spoke about the economic consequences if this were to be passed into law. As you are all aware, there is already a law in place both in Quebec and in B.C. Do you have, any of you, any empirical evidence of any negative economic impact the law has had in those two provinces?

[Kim Furlong]

I will just say that empirical evidence is not with me right now, but the 2005 strike in the port of Vancouver had nothing to do with retailers in the first instance, yet the repercussions for our industry were tremendous. Various retailers will give you different figures--a figure is a figure--but the impact was beyond words. One piece of the supply chain was disrupted and the ripple effects were unbelievable.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question I asked yesterday.

Yes, Mr. Law.

[David Law]

Just in response to your question, I believe that Monsieur Hogue referenced a series of studies, some of which we're familiar with, that speak exactly to the point of economic disruption in these provinces on the basis of prolonged strikes. Prolonged strikes have a severe impact on both parties to the labour bargain, particularly on workers who are on strike and on the communities in which they live and on the businesses that depend upon them. And of course all the businesses that feed businesses that are on strike are affected by longer strikes as well.

So I would suggest, and I'm just following up on Monsieur Hogue's extremely able remarks, that his submissions include reference to a series of empirical studies that would guide the committee in response to your question.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I would hope that all of you would agree that in B.C., where legislation is in place, the economy is booming. I don't think we need empirical evidence to find out how booming that economy is.

[David Law]

It's booming in Alberta too.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

They can't find workers. I'm sure those replacement workers.... It's hard to actually find any workers in that province.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

If I may speak to that point, the fact is that what we're talking about here is a structural change in labour law. What we're enjoying in Canada is a very prolonged period of economic growth. We're into our fifteenth consecutive year of growth across the country, and that's due in part to some smart policy choices we made in the past, whether that was getting into free trade or getting government finances in order. The fact is, labour law is not the only thing that affects economic performance.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are two effects. When we talk about federally regulated sectors, we are talking about industries that have a broader impact on the economy than industries that are regulated at a provincial level, and therefore the follow-on consequences of labour disruptions are more significant. They also will tend to have more of an international profile. One big strike in a major port like Vancouver is noticed, and not just in terms of the immediate economic consequences within Canada. It's noticed internationally by people who ask if they can rely on that as a point of entry.

If I'm not mistaken, I think both your party and the government party have supported one version or another of a Pacific gateway strategy. You see that as a way to help this country grow.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Strike disruptions have a negative impact both on the employees who go on strike and of course on the economy. None of us is arguing that nobody should go on strike; that's a fundamental right. I think you would agree that people have a right to go on strike or not to go on strike.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Absolutely.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Do you believe they have a right to go on strike?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Of course.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Obviously, there's going to be a consequence if they go on strike, but the consequence doesn't take away from the fact that they have that right.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

No, it doesn't. The point is that this bill doesn't change that right; all it does is change the balance of power at the bargaining table and therefore change the likely outcomes over time.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

You mentioned the likely effect of this bill is that there will be more financial gains to the employees. Certainly, you represent CEOs. I don't think any of your members would disagree with more financial gains when they go to renew their contracts.