Human Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Again, the question is if it's in the national interest to change the balance of power that currently exists.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay, but you wouldn't argue against not having financial gains for your own members?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Our members, like individuals who have to negotiate a contract on their own as opposed to collectively, are in a situation where they have to justify compensation based on performance. Collective bargaining is a slightly different context, in the sense that you're bargaining for a group of people, and obviously performance still matters because if the company can't make money, sooner or later it's going to go out of business and people will lose their jobs. That can happen at the individual level too.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Law, you mentioned a comment one of your students made in class about why we are trying to change. When you go before the students and talk about laws and the importance of laws, are laws written for 98% of the people who obey the laws or the 2% who don't obey the laws?

[David Law]

It depends on the laws. Labour laws are written for 100% of the community that is subject to them. No one is exempt, if they're subject to those laws.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

If there is, for example, a situation, as there has been in the past, where people have brought in replacement workers, there have been violent situations, prolonged strikes, and the situation ended up not being very healthy afterwards, isn't that a problem in the present system that needs to be resolved?

[David Law]

It is, sir.

I think strikes are always a problem. Part of the purpose of strikes is to be a problem; that is to inflict some economic disruption on each party but not to paralyze them. What's proposed here is to paralyze one of the parties to render it incapable, essentially, of operating or earning without having the same impact on the other party.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

You're a labour expert, and I'm sure you've read about the fact that you can't even go on strike unless you iron out the issue of essential services. How can you go on strike if you can't first of all go before the board and ask for a ruling on the essential services provision?

[David Law]

Essential services are an exception to the right to strike. You spoke eloquently about the right to strike, and I share your feeling on the subject. It is what workers have. It is the prime instrument workers have, and we don't quarrel with that, so please don't read that into anything you've heard here.

The exception to the right to strike is insofar as public safety is proven to be in peril. Certain workers, not all, will be asked and required to continue to work notwithstanding a law that's proposed that will prevent anyone else from working, which by the way includes preventing anyone who wants to go back to work from going back to work if they're members of a bargaining unit, and that's happened more than once.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Law and Mr. Silva.

We're going to move now to the Bloc.

Madame Lavallée, seven minutes, please.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming to testify. I also thank you for your excellent presentation.

What you said is important, but we have heard these arguments many times. In fact, employers always put the same arguments forward. There is currently an imbalance in bargaining powers and you take advantage of this imbalance. Needless to say, you do not want to lose your privileges. We understand that.

Although the chairman requested that I ask you questions, I am going to give you some arguments instead. Normally, the group of witnesses is better balanced and at least half of them would be presenting the position of the union party. You are the first group not to have any. I will try to explain to you why the Bloc Québécois has introduced this bill for the 10^th time. I will answer Mr. David Law's questions and explain to him what problems this bill solves. Please take notes; that way, you will be able to explain it to your students.

This is the 10^th time in 15 years that the Bloc Québécois has introduced this bill. Even the current Minister, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, voted in favour of this bill when he was a Conservative MP. As you will be able to see, many people find solutions to their problems in this bill. It is well designed. I am less familiar with the situation in British Columbia, but I can say that in Quebec, the same act has been in force for 30 years.

Why did the Quebec government pass it in 1977? It was in the aftermath of a dispute that involved a great deal of violence at the United Aircraft company, which is today called Pratt and Whitney. That same year, at the Robin Hood company, the security guards who had been hired to allow strikebreakers to enter had fired on people and some were wounded. It was crazy. In August 1977, René Lévesque had the Anti-strikebreaking Act adopted. Several years later, when employer representatives suggested to Robert Bourassa, who had become the Premier in the meantime, that he get rid of the act, he refused, arguing that there had been social peace.

You presented scores of numbers and referred to many studies. I too will speak to you of numbers. In fact, the most important statistic of all is the number of person-days lost. However, Quebec cannot be compared to Ontario. Quebeckers are much more highly unionized than Ontarians. As there are more unions and union members in Quebec, there are more strikes. What needs to be compared is the number of person-days lost among workers under the Quebec Labour Code and workers under the Canada Labour Code. The latter lose far more days of work because of disputes.

For example, in 2004, workers subject to the Canada Labour Code, representing less than 8% of the workforce, were responsible for 18% of lost person-days. I am using the 2004 figures because they are the most recent available, but I could also quote you the figures from 2002. In 2002, workers subject to the Canada Labour Code represented only 8% of the workforce, but 49% of person-days lost were attributable to them. This statistic is very revealing, particularly as the Minister of Labour, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, had previously voted in favour of anti-strikebreaking legislation when he was only an MP and there were no limousines at stake.

Last May, when we introduced the bill, he presented many different figures, but each time, we were able to show him that the statistics were being used improperly. He then stopped using arguments from the Institut économique de Montréal, the Fraser Institute and from John Budd, this management consultant from the University of Minnesota who was very well-known in the United States and whom you also cited. He often consults on behalf of management, who often have a highly conflictual attitude towards their employees. He is well-known for his right-wing ideas.

All these people conduct studies, gather numbers that suit them and prepare fine studies for you, the management representatives, and that suits you just fine. Then you throw these figures at us.

Mr. Hogue, you should know that when a strike lasts a long time in Quebec, and there is vandalism and violence on the picket lines, it is always at an organization that is under federal regulation. We know it, we can see it, and we don't need statistics. I will mention a few of these companies to you. At Vidéotron, the strike lasted 10 months. As you are aware, Vidéotron hired strikebreakers and it turned out very badly. There was a great deal of vandalism that caused damage to the employer's facilities. The 2,200 employees were angry and in the end returned to Vidéotron after a 10 month dispute. The strike at Sécur, which had 900 employees, lasted three months, and there again there was vandalism, with the employer's facilities damaged, including ATMs . The Cargill strike at Baie-Comeau lasted 36 months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Lavallée, you have one minute left.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

It lasted 36 months. The strike at Radio-Nord in Abitibi lasted 22 months, and most pathetic of all was a small radio station in Bonaventure that had only 12 employees. The strike lasted three years, and at the end of two years, the 12 replacement workers asked for union certification.

I could of course go on and raise many other arguments, but I just wanted to show you that replacement workers are not in a normal situation: they are sub-employees who do not have the same rights as other employees, and who do not even have the right to unionize. This is not normal. The act has been in force in Quebec for 30 years, and things have been fine for 30 years. There is a level of social peace that should also be available to workers whose employment is governed by the Canada Labour Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You're right on seven minutes. There you go.

[Bernard Hogue]

Mr. Chairman, may I answer—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

No!

[Bernard Hogue]

—even if it is not a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll give you a chance maybe in the upcoming round. That's all her time.

We're going to move to Ms. Davies, from the NDP, for seven minutes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I guess you're hoping I won't take seven minutes.

First of all, thank you for coming.

On the warnings that you're putting across the table here, we've heard them before, even from the minister, and one would think the Canadian economy is going to crash. There's a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole about this bill, but if you look at the actual experience, for example, in Quebec and B.C., where there's over 45 years of shared experience in banning the use of replacement workers, neither province has suffered a dramatic increase in labour costs. There has been no flight in business investment or a shutdown of central services. In fact, the economy has grown. The reality is very different from some of the arguments we're hearing.

Frankly, I'm very surprised, Mr. Stewart-Patterson. You represent the wealthiest in our society. You're from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. I thought you had a lot of gall to say this bill is somehow giving unions more leverage for greater financial gains. I don't understand your rationale on that at all. If we want to get into that, if that were correct, then maybe we had better look at the statistics.

On average, Canadian workers earn about $38,000 a year, compared to the top 100 CEOs in Canada, who range from $2.8 million—and that's the lowest of the 100—to $74 million. Those are some of your members, so it's not exactly a level playing field.

If you add on the information from the Canadian Economic Observer, from StatsCan, it's pretty clear that non-financial institutions and in fact financial institutions are doing pretty well. Non-financial corporations enjoyed an $80 billion surplus in 2005. So if that's what you think this bill is about, that it's somehow just going to give workers more money, then look at your own side of the equation as well.

In actual fact, this bill is about ensuring that there is a level playing field in terms of what happens when a strike takes place. The evidence shows us that a prolonged strike, with the use of replacement workers, can create violence. It can create an enormous amount of instability. It can detract from the real issue of actually settling the strike, of what caused it in the first place, because the issue then becomes replacement workers and what's happening there.

We have all kinds of examples to show where the absence of this kind of legislation under the federal jurisdiction, whether it was in Quebec with Videotron or whether it was in B.C. with the TELUS situation, has caused a lot of suffering.

We really need to focus on what the reality of this bill is about, and not somehow on the idea that this is going to be a lever for workers to gain more than their due. I'm actually really very surprised at your argument, and I don't think you're really focusing on the elements of this bill.

I would ask a question similar to that of the Liberal member. What evidence do you have to show that this bill, if it were implemented, would harm or has harmed economic activity and performance overall? I don't think there is any. The onus is on you to show us that if you believe it exists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Hogue.

[Bernard Hogue]

I would like to answer your question by suggesting a consideration of the question from another standpoint. The concern of business people in Quebec is as follows: we already have this act and there is no evidence thus far to show that it has had the desired effect in Quebec. Ms. Lavallée had some figures, but I have others that show the opposite. I could, for example, give you as an example the strike at the Société des alcools du Québec that affected 3,800 employees. The strike began on November 11, 2004 and lasted three months, in spite of the legislation. A strike that opposed the Noranda Mine Workers Union—a CSN affiliate, at Métallurgie Noranda-Horne Smelter involved 500 employees. It began in June 2002 and lasted 11 months. It had been hoped that such legislation would shorten the length of strikes, but on the contrary, it did not appear to make a difference in Quebec.

Another aspect needs to be considered, and this is perhaps in response to the question from your colleague, the MP opposite. The problem being experienced in Quebec at this time is the following. We are having a great deal of difficulty in attracting our share of foreign investment in Quebec because foreign entrepreneurs and business leaders consider Quebec to be a society in which the legislation is very burdensome. The more layers of sedimentation that are added to the legislation, the more investors consider that their investments are at risk. If we lose other economic benefits, it is at least partly because of this problem. Foreign businesses and entrepreneurs hesitate to invest in Quebec and opt for other provinces in Canada. It is because of this problem in Quebec that our employers are concerned.

Let us simply consider the statement made by Donald J. Johnston, the former Secretary General of the OECD, a respectable man, who has respect and who is thoroughly familiar with labour problems. He said that the number of unjustifiable restrictions to market rules was undermining productivity and the attractiveness of the Canadian economy in the eyes of foreign investors. In Quebec, this can already be seen to be significant.

I would also add that in terms of the number of days lost per 1,000 workers—and these are recent figures—the number lost is one and a half times higher in Quebec than in Ontario on a comparable basis.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Any strike has an economic impact, but I think the issue we're trying to deal with here is that the use of replacement workers is actually prolonging that dispute and actually limiting the ability of the parties to get to the table and to come to a collective agreement, to settle it.

We're not talking about strikes here. The strike in the port of Vancouver, I understand, had a huge impact, but that was about the strike. This is about replacement workers and whether or not they can be used.

The absence of replacement workers means there is then more focus on dealing with the strike and getting it resolved. Ending it earlier, I'm sure you would agree, is preferable to having it dragged out, because, yes, there would be a greater economic impact then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have. We are going to move on to our next questioner.

Mr. Hiebert, from the Conservative Party, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to make a quick response to what Ms. Davies had to say in terms of replacement workers not prolonging strikes, we've heard all kinds of reports going back and forth from witnesses before this committee citing studies that say the replacement worker legislation does not diminish the length of strikes. So it's kind of frustrating for me to hear members opposite contradicting evidence provided by witnesses, and I think at one point we should try to dispel those myths once and for all.

I think it's important for the members of this committee, especially the new members, to recognize that right now the federal government has the lowest work stoppage rate in the country, lower than any province. So when Mr. Law asks what is the problem we are trying to fix, it's a very good question. Because if we already have the lowest work stoppage rate in the country, why are we trying to mess with success? Things are obviously working very well, and to interfere in the process, I think we've heard many times now, would have dire consequences.

It's also been mentioned by one of my colleagues across the way that B.C. is booming in spite of the replacement worker legislation that was adopted in 1992. I would invite Mr. Silva to consider the fact that in 1992 the economy was not booming. I mean, it might be booming now, and it has been for a couple of years, but that was certainly not the case throughout the last 15 years. There have been many times where B.C. was not the lead economy in the country, and it's been in spite of the fact that this legislation is present that we've had some gains.

Perhaps you'll recall from a few days ago that the representative from the B.C. business council said B.C. is still losing businesses, in its current climate, as a result of this legislation.

I also want to note, for the benefit of all members, that this legislation has been rejected nine times. Nine times it's come before a committee just like this, with very smart individuals sitting around the table, with expert witnesses giving testimony, and nine times it's been rejected.

I don't often give Liberals compliments, but in this instance, Liberals rejected this legislation nine times, and I want to give them credit where credit is due.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

We don't like Trojan horses.