Human Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[David Stewart-Patterson]

If I may, I think the committee has already been presented with any number of studies that have addressed the question from an academic point of view. I think I'd come at it from a very practical point of view. Simply, if you tilt the balance it will have an impact on the margins, things like cost, and because of the profiles of some of these sectors, it may have a reputational impact on foreign investment in particular.

The point is, can the economy grow well even with such a law in place? Sure, but it doesn't mean the economic cycle is dead. The question is whether this legislation is going to help the economy grow faster when it's going well. Is it going to make recessions less painful when those come along? Even though we haven't had one in 15 years, I'm sure we will at some point. Again, is this change in the balance something that's going to make growth stronger and recessions less serious? Is it going to help attract investment, or is it going to discourage investment? I think from a directional point of view, the answer is pretty obvious. You make labour markets more rigid, you make things more expensive, you increase risks, and people are more likely to stay away. What percentage? As I said, you can look at any number of academics and get answers to that, but when we're looking at a piece of legislation, the question is whether it is a mistake or not.

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

Just before the chair drops his gavel, can you very quickly tell me what some of your suggestions would be if we were to make changes to this particular piece of legislation?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

I think I addressed that question in an earlier round, to Mr. Silva if I'm not mistaken. I don't see any way to finesse a little amendment to somehow make this neutral or to find the right balance. I think I would agree with my colleagues here that we've carefully worked out a balance in this country and there's no compelling reason that we should be shifting that balance.

[David Law]

I agree. I echo that.

I'd like to offer one point to the concerns addressed on my right here, which is that aside from the business impacts, which you've heard a great deal about from this group, the point of the law is to stop people from working. It prevents bargaining unit members from re-entering the workplace during a strike. Essentially, their union will tell them not to work. It will create greater conflicts between unions and workers. It will prevent people from going back to work. It will prevent replacement workers from going back to work. That can't be perceived as a positive economic outcome. I'm told repeatedly that it prolongs strikes, notwithstanding what some people believe. That's also tremendously detrimental to working people it's supposed to serve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Law, and thank you, Ms. Dhalla.

We're going to move to our last questioner today. Mr. Lake, you have five minutes, please.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you all for coming in today. I do appreciate you guys getting down here, and I'm glad we got you in.

Actually, I've heard, to your credit, some different arguments than I've heard from some of the other witnesses that are against this legislation.

One of the things I sense from you is a little bit of frustration, perhaps, maybe surprise--I share those sentiments--that a piece of legislation like this has even gotten this far. I think it's pretty extreme legislation. I think a lot of the people we've heard talk have said the same thing. You might be surprised to learn that some of those concerns are shared by a fellow named Mr. Sydney Green in an editorial he wrote in the Winnipeg Free Press. Sydney Green is a former Manitoba cabinet minister, actually an NDP cabinet minister, in Manitoba.

Mr. Law, in particular, some of the comments you made caused me to reflect a little bit on this article. I'm going to read a little bit from it and get your comments.

He starts off:

The election of a minority government has resulted in a curious anomaly. The combined opposition is in a position where it believes that it can pass legislation in direct conflict with the position of the government. Indeed, the combined opposition, simply to flex its muscles, has given second reading to legislation that no party seeking to become the federal government has ever included as a plank in an election platform.

He goes on to say, at a different point:

When free collective bargaining is the rule, employees have the right to withdraw their services. But when they do so, they run the risk of being unsuccessful. The ultimate risk is the risk of losing one's job. The employers had the right to resist union demands and to carry on their business. But in doing so, they ran the risk of losing. The ultimate risk was being put out of business.

It sounds similar to what you were saying today. He says, “This balance of ultimate risks was a most important feature. It demanded responsibility on both sides. It was the cornerstone and safety valve of the free collective bargaining process”.

When discussing the history of labour legislation, Mr. Green says, “This so-called anti-scab legislation is the most outrageous demand yet, and lowers the coffin into the grave.”

This is an NDP cabinet minister from Manitoba speaking.

When discussing the long-term implications of Bill C-257, Mr. Green points out that:

The implication of legislative interference, once the principle of non-interference is abandoned, is boundless. In answer to anti-scab legislation, employers can logically demand that during a lockout, employees locked out cannot seek other employment.

That's exactly what you were saying, I think, Mr. Law.

Actually, I'm going to stop there. I want to ask any of you, but particularly Mr. Law to start, if you want to comment on that.

[David Law]

Well, I haven't read the article, but I could say this. We've had minority parliaments before. The truth of the matter is, the way it works, as I understand it, is that the opposition parties, if they wish to combine and pass legislation, unless it's a confidence measure, can do so. That's their right. It's perfectly their right to do so. So the question becomes how they exercise that authority, as any majority in the House would, however it's constituted.

We've had minority parliaments before. David Lewis held the balance of power in the House of Commons during some very tumultuous times in labour relations. We don't have federal anti-replacement-worker legislation emanating back to the time when he held the balance of power. That tells me something. We look at the prairie provinces, where we've had New Democratic governments. They haven't adopted it.

We should look at the true effects of this, not just on the business community, which is here before you today and speaking on behalf of their constituents, but in terms of the people who you seek to serve with it. I think that's the issue. You may think that disingenuous, and it might be, but the truth of the matter is, it deserves a balanced approach. This is not how we do labour law in this country. It is not how we negotiate contracts, and Mr. Green makes that point.

Is it the coffin in the grave? You know, rhetoric gets a little excited, doesn't it, sometimes in these things? But this isn't how we bargain. Labour law shouldn't be a political game. And I'm not suggesting it's purely that. There are sincere concerns expressed about workplace violence on the pickets lines. Those are real issues, and it's disgusting that those things occur, and the people responsible for them, on all sides, should be held accountable for them.

This is not the instrument to correct that. That's our issue. And a lot of other parties, New Democrats, who've had the opportunity to hold the balance of power or to be in government, have not adopted this measure, because they understand how labour law works. In fact, the New Democrats, for what it's worth, usually have more experience with labour relations issues than a lot of other parliamentarians, given some of the work they've done and their own histories. So they get it. So I would say, look at that experience and look at those examples, sir.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It is interesting to point out that the New Democratic governments right now in Saskatchewan and Manitoba don't have this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have, sir.

I want to thank the witnesses again for being here today. I realize how important it is to each one of your industries. As I said, we passed a resolution before Christmas to hear some of the witnesses who didn't get a chance beforehand. I know Mr. Green was going to be one of those to testify, but his schedule would not work out. There are a few others on the other side whose schedules didn't work out either.

I want to once again thank you very much for being here. This is an important issue, and we still have some work to do.

We are going to suspend for a few minutes and then we have some committee business to take care of before we adjourn. Thank you once again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could the members go back to their seats so that we can finish up the committee business, please?

The subcommittee met today. It was a good meeting. We were unanimous on the report in terms of what you see before us, which is proposing a work schedule over the next couple of weeks and months.

Could someone present a motion to carry the third report?

It is moved by Ms. Dhalla and seconded by Mr. Lessard.

Go ahead, Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Could I just mention that if we do need a little extra time, we may be allowed to have it? Other than that, it's a great schedule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

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

What was that? We'd have a little extra time for what?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It would be for any of the legislative bills that we have to go through, Bill C-36 and Bill C-303. We have a few days set aside if they should need more days.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Looking at this schedule, I feel it's acceptable. I believe the government is quite interested in getting Bill C-36 through, and I think there is even all-party support. It's behind Bill C-257. I just want to have an assurance that if we adopt this schedule for Bill C-257, there are no witnesses other than those who are scheduled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That's correct, so we have put February 13 as a technical briefing and then two days for clause-by-clause consideration. I would like to have an understanding that if it's necessary to go to longer hours, to do that. I would like to see it done by February 15, because I think even the government members should be interested in that, given that Bill C-36 is behind it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The way it stands is if we adopt this, we are going to have to make a motion to change it, so we're adopting it with the understanding that we'll be done on February 15.

Ms. Yelich's point was that if we need to look at some of the other legislation, we may need to, but that still is going to have to be addressed at the time.

Is there any further discussion? As there is none, I call the question.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The meeting is adjourned.