Human Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[Kim Furlong]

—and that company would be federally regulated. There would be a breakdown in that system when someone shows up at a point of sale at one of my members' stores and can't use it because of a strike. We're just trying to say that if one link becomes weaker in a supply chain, there's a disruption.

We're not calling for the apocalypse. We're saying that in a very competitive situation, in which Canada is fighting and has to rethink its productivity as it looks to the 21st century--and this is what departments across town and politicians across party lines are thinking--how do we go forward when you bring forward a bill that could potentially harm the supply chain?

There's no evident reason we should implement this bill. My members are not saying yes or no; they're just saying they'd like to be here before you to tell you that there could be a risk and to ask if that risk is worth it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

That's all the time we have, Mr. Lessard.

We've going to move to Ms. Davies, for five minutes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I think you heard from other members that we've heard the basic arguments a number of times, and the positions are fairly well established.

I've heard repeatedly from business organizations the argument that the status quo is working, so why attack a problem that doesn't exist?

One of you just said—I think it was you, Mr. Stewart-Patterson—that this will alter the balance that appears to work. I think that's obviously what you're trying to put forward, that the status quo is okay, and if we go ahead with this, there will be negative economic consequences.

But I think actually, again, if you look at what has happened, for most employers this bill would never be used. Probably for over 97%, even the labour minister has said most labour disputes get settled and they don't go to strike. So we are talking about, unfortunately, instances where things get really rough and they go very wrong.

I can think of two recently. There was the Ekati Diamond Mine strike in the Northwest Territories, and there was the TELUS strike in B.C., both of which were very protracted, both of which used replacement workers, and in both there were consequences in terms of morale and they went on much longer than they needed to because of the use of replacement workers.

So I actually don't see that the status quo is good enough. I think even the Sims report, which we've heard so much about, didn't reach a consensus on what they were doing. I would say they came to a compromise, but there was a minority report. In fact, in that minority report, I think Dr. Blouin sort of said to parliamentarians that this issue really hasn't yet been dealt with.

So I just really want to go at your argument that the status quo is okay, because I think we do have recent examples of where unfortunately there have been disputes, with replacement workers, and they have been incredibly unsatisfactory, to say the least.

No one is here to make some sort of willing mistake. There's a reason this bill is coming forward, to deal with those few unfortunate situations.

So I actually see this as a preventative measure. That's how I look at it. It's something that's actually preventative in terms of trying to prevent prolonged labour disputes, and I think that's a goal that everybody should share.

[Bernard Hogue]

In Quebec, this legislation exists and has not yielded any conclusive results. What would be the purpose of extending it to all of Canada when the known example we have in Quebec demonstrates that it did not reduce the length of disputes? It does not affect the length of the disputes. I would even say that it has done very little to address the sorts of problems that can arise on picket lines. During the recent strike at the Société des alcools du Québec, there was vandalism, even with the Quebec legislation. And in Quebec, of course, the Conseil des services essentiels takes action quickly.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

But if you look at the days of work lost, for example, in Quebec from, 1999 to 2004, about 2.5 million days were lost, compared to the same period, federally, of 7.92 million. There is a huge difference if we want to actually look at days of work lost.

There may have been difficult situations in those strikes in Quebec. I wasn't there, so I don't know, and I take your word for it. But when you actually look at the comparisons and compare Quebec to, say, the federal jurisdiction, which covers only about 15% of workers anyway, the rate of days lost is at least twice as high as it is in Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have one minute.

[David Law]

With respect, if the concern is violence at the picket line, essentially the answer offered here is to ban the replacement worker to alleviate the conflict at the picket line. Honestly, fundamentally, it is no better, morally or legally, than saying, “Ban the picket line.”

Essentially, if the issue is managing tensions at a picket line, you are taking an enormous stick to deal with an issue that is serious but not catastrophic across the country. It seems like the wrong fix if that's the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to now move to Mr. Brown for five minutes.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

I would look for some comments from Mr. Hogue and Mr. Law on the following question. When I look at federally regulated employees, I think of large networks that are spread out across the country, that are important infrastructure for the Canadian economy, possibly more so than is the case for provincially regulated employees.

When I see us embarking upon the slippery slope, my concern is the effect that doing so will have on the Canadian economy. I want to first of all get your comments on the repercussions it could have for the Canadian economy, but further, there is almost a fiduciary obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to keep labour peace. The Canada Labour Code recognizes the importance of maintaining essential services by giving Parliament the power to restrict a union's right to strike and to enact back-to-work legislation.

I think it is important to recognize that Parliament gave that power. Look at the Sims report. Since its adoption by the previous Liberal government in 1999, we haven't seen any use of back-to-work legislation. Why would we change course when we appear to be successful at seeing more labour peace today than we saw a quarter of a century ago? That trend appears to be continuing.

Ms. Davies mentioned that there was no consensus in the Sims report, but it did say that it wasn't appropriate to change course. Even the dissenting opinion was nothing to the extent as radical as this legislation is.

I wanted to get your comments on how you believe this is going to affect Canada in the long term. I would ask Mr. Law to speak first and then Mr. Hogue.

[David Law]

It won't be the apocalypse. I don't believe it will. We have to remember that federally regulated employers are not all huge businesses. There are many small and medium-sized businesses operating in support roles in the aviation and shipping sectors and so forth, which may be federally regulated. So it's not just these monster organizations. There is a bit of a fictional notion that large organizations are capable of withstanding any degree of economic hardship. I think we have to get past the notion that they should.

Ms. Davies made a point that I think is very important, and I want to be clear. Please don't characterize the negative view about this particular bill as necessarily a negative view about everything with respect to labour. The labour system actually does work. It's a balance. I know. I work in it. I watch it work.

If my clients suffer strikes, the other party suffers strikes. That's the point of a strike. The reason the parties don't go to strike is that they know what the effects of it will be on each other.

If we alter the instrument of the strike in the fashion described here, the effect will be simple. Almost all the pain, or a substantial amount of the pain, will be felt by one party instead of by both, because one party will be rendered incapable of functioning and the other will not. The other will still be able to get work, still be able to get strike pay. It's not good. It's not pretty, I know; it isn't, but that is a profound imbalance. I don't know what the effects on the willingness of people to invest, to put their money at risk, will be. These are all incremental things. They go to the nature of the quality of our enterprise, the quality of our environment to accept business risk.

Those things aren't nothing. Those are very real, and this law has struck a chord with a lot of folks in what you would call the business community, because they recognize what it means. They recognize that it is, as I keep saying, distortion and that it is disrespectful to the labour law methodology that we have adopted in this country.

I can't imagine that folks on the other side of this issue would like to be unilaterally treated to the counter-law that will inevitably come if this becomes law, because what do we expect to happen? Another Parliament will have to fix it, and goodness knows what they'll do. This shouldn't be a volleyball. Labour relations are too important to the economy to become a political volleyball. They're a very intricate and delicate thing. They are literally a house of cards.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

On that point—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There are 30 seconds left on that question.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

On the point of rupturing the balance, I mentioned back-to-work legislation. Do you anticipate that we might possibly open the door for more back-to-work legislation by changing this balance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could we get just a quick response, Mr. Hogue?

[Bernard Hogue]

I will answer your first question, if I may, because I believe it is important. In Quebec, it is not the end of the world, but a great deal of effort is being made to attract foreign investment, probably more effort than in the other provinces. If a Canada-wide additional layer of legislation is added, and this layer scares off foreign investors because of the relations this may require them to have with their workers here, they will not come to Canada. In this era of globalization, foreign investment is extremely important. Our companies in Quebec are having a great deal of trouble attracting foreign investment. I do not see why we would recommend to all Canadians that they jump into the same boat as Quebec when this legislation was passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Brown, and thank you, Mr. Hogue.

I'm going to move to the last round.

Ms. Dhalla, for five minutes, please.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you very much to all our witnesses for providing us with information and the particular viewpoints of yourselves and your member organizations.

My first question is for Mr. Patterson and then for Ms. Furlong. Can you please tell us how many members within your particular organizations are actually unionized?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Not off the top of my head, no.

[Kim Furlong]

Unionization for the Retail Council--not retail in general, because grocers are not part of the Retail Council of Canada--would be about 4% to 5%.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

So 4% to 5%?

[Kim Furlong]

Yes. Our industry is not a highly unionized industry, but we do interact heavily with unionized industry.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I believe Mr. Law touched upon this particular point with regard to the impact this law would have on small and medium-sized businesses a couple of times during his speech. Could you perhaps expand on that for the committee?

[David Law]

Simply put, I would think it's important for the committee to examine the profile of federally regulated businesses to see that they're not all gigantic corporations that appear to be immune to economic pain. That's all. There are many smaller employers in this zone. Our constituency of human resource professionals--30,000 or more across the country--work in every conceivable kind of workplace, not just federally regulated ones, of course.

I think it's important to recognize that this kind of legislation will have a different effect on the small and medium-sized enterprises than on the larger ones that may be able to pool capital to sustain a long period without business. That's what we're talking about here--no operations, no services, no delivery of product through the means of alternative workers. It is essentially paralyzing them.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I believe Mr. Hogue touched upon this as well. I wonder if you could expand on it and if Mr. Patterson could add his particular comments.

We all know the importance of foreign investment to ensure that we as a country can compete with some of the emerging markets. Have you done any particular research in terms of the differentiation of foreign investment in British Columbia and in Quebec versus other parts of the country and the type of impact this would have on foreign investment?

[Bernard Hogue]

I do not have the figures here, unfortunately, because I did not bring them.

Yes, in Quebec last year, the share of investment, proportionately speaking, was below the level of investment in the rest of Canada. So in Quebec, we are suffering from too much labour legislation at different levels, and it is clear to us and to our members that it more difficult to obtain foreign investment because of a high unionization rate and inflexible legislation that scares away foreign investors.