Human Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

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

It's also been mentioned by the Bloc that Minister Blackburn voted for this legislation and then changed his mind. Well, it's important to note that he voted for this legislation in 1990, which was well before the Sims report. It was only after the Sims report that he changed his position. Clearly, deferring to the experts and the years of time they took to evaluate this matter had its impact. So let's stop suggesting that this is a sham. There were very good reasons behind why he changed his vote.

My question to Mr. Hogue would be whether you could help us understand the difference between your legislation in Quebec and the federal legislation, and the impact a federal strike would have if it were to occur.

[Bernard Hogue]

Indeed, the difference between the two is not that great. We are experiencing a major problem in Quebec: and that is that the act has not reduced the number of strike days. With respect to the bill that has been introduced, we do not think that there would generally be a significant difference in the number of strike days.

If we compare the situation in various provinces between 2003 and 2005, per 1,000 workers, 132 days of work were lost in Quebec because of strikes. During the same period, the number in British Columbia was 59, and in Ontario, 81. Of course, there is more unionization in Quebec than in the other provinces of Canada. This may have an impact, but it did not have a beneficial influence from the standpoint of labour relations. The strikes are just as long, often longer, and workers use the legislation to make the strikes last longer. And contrary to the figures that are often thrown out about the number of days of work lost in Quebec because of strikes, one cannot say that there has really been any significant difference in terms of the act having beneficial impacts in Quebec. Of course, there is the possibility of calling—

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

I note that Quebec still has the highest labour rate stoppages in the country. Basically you're saying that this legislation has not solved the problem; in fact, it may have made it worse. Is that correct?

[Bernard Hogue]

Precisely. It does not solve the problem, it does not provide conclusive evidence.

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

The angle I'm trying to pursue here is this. We've heard testimony suggesting, even just today, that the work stoppage in B.C. at the ports, the recent strike that occurred, had ripple effects across the country. What would happen if a federal industry was shut down as a result of a strike? Can you explain for the members here the impact on consumers, the impact on Canadians?

A common question that I've been asking is, what would be the consequences for ordinary Canadians if this legislation was to pass? We've heard about a lack of groceries on store shelves. There's a lack of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

One minute, Mr. Hiebert.

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

I'll stop there. Please answer the question. What's the consequence to ordinary Canadians?

[David Law]

One consequence is you should consider the jurisdictions in question. What's under federal jurisdiction? Shipping, rail, air transport, telecommunications--these are not incidental items to our economy. They are the sinews of the economy. They are the infrastructure upon which all businesses hinge, and you've heard about that from our colleagues.

The ripple effects will be more profound than perhaps a strike localized in a province to a provincially regulated business. If it isn't an essential service exception, which are exceptions, this will simply happen. The strike at the port of Vancouver is an example of the consequences of this kind of a strike taking hold, of the kinds of strikes that have taken hold in Quebec since this legislation became law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Law and Mr. Hiebert.

Mr. Hiebert, I'll maybe just point out as well that this legislation has never actually made it to committee before. It has always died at second reading.

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

For good reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to move to our next questioner.

For five minutes, second round, Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm going to let Mr. Dryden have the first 55 seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's fine.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

All of this is a matter of credibility. You've heard the arguments from the other side. The arguments from the other side would say that in fact it is also a question of balance, and from their understanding of balance, the system is out of balance the other way. For all of us listening, it is a question of credibility.

As the point was made here earlier today, the key question is, what has the impact been, not between Ontario and Quebec, but between Quebec and Quebec at different times before the legislation and after? It's the same in Ontario, where the changes have happened. It's the same in British Columbia. What has the impact been?

I was given this study today that was prepared by the Canadian Bankers Association, and the number of person days lost per million, which is the lower one here--and it goes back to 1976, and this is in Ontario and Quebec--was dramatically different before the legislation in Quebec. Then essentially it seems as if the labour environment changed in the province and things flattened out at a much lower level.

If you were to compare the last 10 or 15 years in Ontario and Quebec, it's not much different. It may be two and a half times different in 2005. If you went to 1996 and 1997, it would be two and a half times the other way. Essentially, year in and year out, it's roughly the same. If you flipped over and did the same in terms of B.C. and Ontario, again it flattened out; there's not much difference. There was a dramatic difference after the changes took place; the labour situation has changed a lot.

I would just caution you in terms of your comments. Again, it's a matter of credibility. The more you talk in terms of the sky falling when there's not any evidence here of the sky falling, it really does damage one's credibility in the whole thing. I would really caution you to imagine the other person's argument as you are giving your argument.

I would say exactly the same thing to the other side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Savage, for two and a half minutes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

For a goal tender, you'd make a good penalty killer, because you killed a lot of time.

My question maybe follows up on that. The Liberal members are new to this; we've been studying this furiously, and I think we've become well educated on it. Unfortunately, the witnesses we are hearing are all of one side; it's not very balanced. We heard most of the labour point of view before Christmas, but we appreciate the fact that you came in and took the time.

We're not going to change a lot of views on this. I'm asking any one of you, either in the few seconds that I have left or after this, whether there are amendments to this. We're going to hear a technical briefing. Do any of you think there is something in this bill that can be amended that would satisfy perhaps both parties, that might satisfy you, or is it a matter of yes or no to this bill?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

If I may, the short answer to that question is a yes or a no. I don't think this is a problem that can be addressed by trying to fiddle at the margins.

But to come back to the question of credibility, I don't think anybody here is predicting that this bill by itself is going to cause the apocalypse. The fact is it's something that will tilt the balance of power at the bargaining table at the margins.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can look at it in isolation and ask this: is it going to change life in the country a huge amount, one way or the other? I would say no, but the fact is it's part of an overall economic strategy.

How many things is a governing party going to do? How many things is an opposition party going to propose that constitute a strategy for the country? What policy changes do we want to make that will help this country grow, create better jobs, and bring in investments? What policies are we going to propose that may have an economic cost but serve other objectives that are more important?

All I'm trying to say is this is something that will have negative economic consequences. You have to look at it as part of what you're going to propose as your overall strategy for making this country a better and stronger place.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Does anybody else have a view on that? Does everyone agree with that?

[David Law]

Well, I would say this. It doesn't have to be an apocalypse to be a mistake. It doesn't have to bring the sky down to be the wrong move.

You're absolutely right. Dramatic rhetoric has a tendency to kind of denude the message of its quality, and it doesn't help. I appreciate that.

The bottom line is that it alters the balance that appears to work. The rationale for it is not evident. The violence it is purported to cure is not endemic. There was a crisis situation in the 1970s that had to be addressed in Quebec, perhaps dramatically. It was addressed and it worked. There is no crisis here.

Latterly, to go to a point I raised earlier, because I think it's important to parliamentarians, we don't make labour law like this in this country. Labour law is a saw-off. It's a compromise. It's a process of back and forth. It shouldn't be a political football.

An example of how not to make labour law is to look at what's happened in Ontario over the last 10 or 15 years, as the law has been bounced back and forth between very extreme views on how it should function, depending on who happened to hold the keys. We're now finally landing somewhere, back where we should be, around a consensus.

It's how this country has made labour law. I would urge you to consider that tradition. The tradition has real value. What worked in Quebec 30 years ago may have been necessary 30 years ago. Are we in those conditions nationally now? Is that the kind of crisis we face today?

I haven't heard any witness on either side of this debate offer any evidence of that crisis. The sky is not falling, but why make a mistake you don't have to make? It's the question that bedevils us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Law.

Thank you, Mr. Savage and Mr. Dryden.

We're now going to move to our second questioner.

Mr. Lessard, for five minutes, please.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to thank our guests for their testimony. I think they will understand that we will not be able to decide on the fate of Bill C-257 merely on the basis of the fact that it has previously been rejected nine times. If that were the case, women would still not have the right to vote. It took many attempts before the House of Commons allowed women to vote. What I would like to address—and Mr. Dryden noted this effectively—is the question of whether the allegations concerning the fears that are apprehended are well founded.

Before asking Mr. Hogue a question, I would like to comment on your statements. My colleague Mr. Silva mentioned earlier that the economy in British Columbia was humming along nicely, etc. You replied that there had been constructive initiatives by companies, management, etc., and that these have yielded results. Are we to understand that if one day things were not going well, it would be because the province has passed an act prohibiting the use of replacement workers? That is what is being implied. If things are going well in British Columbia, despite the act, can we then say that it does not prevent the economy from doing well? We would therefore have to draw that conclusion as well, would we not?

Mr. Hogue, and you as well Ms. Furlong, mentioned that all of the effects of such an act on the workings of the new economy, which is based on rapid communications contacts for business, including the use of credit cards. Everything depends on cards, and the system is managed by the banks. At the banks, the rate of unionization is below 1%. We know that services are offshored. For example, when I called Visa for information, my call was answered in Italy. A colleague was also transferred to another country. You get my drift.

The question was well put by our Liberal colleague: where are the concrete examples to indicate that your concerns are well founded? In Quebec, there is no justification for such concerns, and there is no apparent crisis because the percentage of workers under federal authority compared to the total number of workers is approximately 20%. Each time there is a dispute like the ones my colleague mentioned earlier, there is always talk of percentages. For workers, they are genuine crises.

I will allow you to answer that.

[Kim Furlong]

I would start by saying that the person who answered your friend in Italy was probably in a call centre. There was no production involved, mostly servicing. At different times of the day there are different language skills. We see it in India. Outsourcing is becoming very common.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I am interrupting to ensure that we understand one another. Even though the service has been offshored, the rate of unionization in the banks is below 1%. The risk does not lie in that.

[Kim Furlong]

That being said, there might be a 1% unionization rate in a bank, but that's not to say that a bank would not outsource a system in terms of telecommunication and find another company that would provide it to them—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have one minute, Mr. Lessard.