Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Bill Tufts]

Yes. This is Bill Tufts from the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce.

The last time the Canadian Labour Code was investigated on a thorough basis by a task force was during the Sims task force. The 20 years prior to the Sims task force saw a large period of labour upheaval. In fact, in the 20-year period prior to the Sims task force, there were in total 17 federal work stoppages.

The Sims task force sat at that time and came up with a series of recommendations that were incorporated into the legislation. Since 1999, there has been no need to pass any emergency back-to-work legislation.

It is our opinion that the system is working very well, that there appears to be no problem that needs to be adjusted or rectified. We are happy with the status quo and feel that changes to this act might bring us back to a period of time when there would be some major or serious federal work stoppages or labour upheaval.

Thank you.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the witness for his comments, but it doesn't answer my question, which was whether there was any emprical evidence of any economic problems effected by the bill, as it was with the Quebec legislation. That was my question.

But I would like to split my time, as I mentioned, so Mr. Savage could have a round.

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

Thank you very much, and thank you to the witnesses.

I'm sorry we've lost Charlottetown. I know what it's like...an hour different on the east coast.

We're trying to come to terms with this bill, obviously. We've had people, on the one hand, saying that if we pass this legislation essential services in Canada are going to shut down, the infrastructure of Canada is at risk. On the other hand, we have people suggesting that if we don't pass this legislation there in fact isn't balance in the management-labour situation, and that's not good. I'm trying to find out exactly where we are on this.

I'd like to first of all ask the chambers of commerce a question...or perhaps Mr. Bell. Are you saying you are concerned that unions will force more work stoppages? If this bill passes and the replacement workers are going to be illegal, are you suggesting that unions are going to want to have work stoppages, that this is in their interest?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do any of the chambers want to address that? Winnipeg or Hamilton?

[Bill Tufts]

Yes, Len Falco from the Hamilton chamber.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, why don't we start with the Hamilton chamber, very quickly, and then we'll go to Winnipeg.

[Len Falco]

I guess the whole situation revolves around the fact that we don't want to change it for the benefit of a few. Currently, I think we have a fair and balanced system. It's working well. We haven't had any real problems, so why are we changing it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Winnipeg, you had a quick comment?

[Bill Gardner]

Thank you.

If you look at the various methods that have been attempted to resolve bargaining disputes over the years and you follow the history of strikes in Canada and some of its alternatives, including interest arbitration, final-offer selection, and other attempts to come up with an alternative, you'll find that nothing has ever replaced the strike and lockout option as a perfectly balanced way of testing what's important to either side of the bargaining table. The beauty of the strike option--and it's maybe a strange word, but it fits--is that it is equally distasteful and disruptive to both sides.

The entire history of Canadian labour relations and labour legislation, with the exception of B.C. and Quebec and Ontario briefly, has been with the strike and lockout option existing in the context of replacement workers temporarily being available. And it has worked. There's no doubt that labour organizations have made significant gains. They seem to have prospered and expanded without the need for a ban on replacement workers.

If you change that balance, you are bound to have a consequence. Nothing happens without consequences in today's modern economy. In our view, it is bound to be ill-advised where one side is vehemently against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Gardner.

Do you have one quick follow-up, Mr. Savage?

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

I have one question.

The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce indicated that this would detract from Canada's attractiveness as a place in which to invest. I was going to ask about other countries, but I don't have enough time to do that.

I'll just ask, do you have specific examples of companies that have refused to invest in either B.C. or Quebec or Ontario while they had similar legislation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Hamilton chamber.

[Len Falco]

This is Len Falco from the Hamilton chamber.

I don't have anything specifically with me right now. There are a number of academic and government studies that have found that a ban on replacement workers has been much more harmful than helpful to the local economy. There generally is less business investment. As a matter of fact, one study found that investment rates are 25% lower in the two provinces that have a ban on replacement workers than those without a ban.

I'm sorry, I don't have the backup information on that, but I could get that for you if you wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. If you have any forthcoming information, that would be great.

We are going to move to the Bloc. Madame Lavallée, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to start by congratulating someone, which is rather unusual for me. I would like to congratulate Richard Bell, because he has actually read the bill.

I would like to correct one of the Chambers of Commerce that presented a brief a little earlier: subclause (2.4) of the bill refers to subsection (2.3). In no way does it require a company to do nothing in the case of a labour dispute. In fact, it does quite the opposite. Although there seem to be some problems in the English version, the French version is identical to the Quebec legislation, the Quebec Labour Code, which has been in place for 30 years.

Subclauses (2.3) and (2.4)—and I'm speaking from memory here—state that a company may take steps to protect its infrastructure and equipment. I am thinking, for example of an aluminum boiler that must be kept operating. The company, in that case, could negotiate with the union either to use unionized workers or to hire additional workers.

And that is where subclause (2.4) comes into play. It states that these must be conservation measures exclusively. That is really what the bill states. The Quebec Labour Code is very clear on this. Perhaps there is some ambiguity in the English version, but if that is so, it will be corrected.

The Bloc Québécois drafted this bill. I must tell you that any interpretation other than the one we provide is put forward in bad faith. Unfortunately, that is the fact of the matter.

There is another point. The Canada Labour Code contains another measure. It states in section 87.4—and once again I am working from memory—that some activities must be maintained if they are necessary to prevent any risks to public safety and health. There is already a provision of this type in the Canada Labour Code.

Reread the Canada Labour Code, Mr. Bell, because I know you are particularly concerned. I understand your concerns, because you are in a special situation. However, it is clear that a strike could never result in having people starve or compromising public safety and security. That is very clear. That is not the objective of this bill.

This legislation has been in place in Quebec for 30 years, and it works very well. Moreover, 911 services are governed by the Quebec Labour Code. There has never been a catastrophe, and no one has ever complained that public health or safety had been endangered. Furthermore, the Quebec Labour Code applies to the Ministry of Health. It applies to nurses, to health care services, and to specialists. In each case, the parties reach an accommodation, so to speak, they find a way of deciding on what should be done and negotiating the essential services.

Even when there is no legislation on replacement workers, you must assume that unions are acting in good faith. This is so much the case that in each instance, a way was found of negotiating the essential services. I read in the The Globe and Mail—unfortunately I don't have the article with me and so I cannot translate it for you into French, because I would be too afraid of making mistakes—that there is a union about to go on strike that is negotiating—I believe the union is present here today—in the Greater Toronto Area. It even agreed to maintain GO Transit services during the strike. I think that shows good faith on the part of the union. There are representatives of that union here, and I would like to ask them a few questions.

Did your union in fact propose this to the employer? Why did you do that? Could you explain that further?

[Tim Secord]

Madame Lavallée, the reason for the proposal is initially that the code requires that the parties, before they start to bargain collectively, have to address the issue of the maintenance of activities agreement. As I stated before, we attempted to do that with the employer prior to negotiations starting. The employer—in this case, CN—said they didn't think there were any services that were essential for us to maintain, so that was the end of that. Both sides agreed, and neither side applied to the board to argue for an order otherwise.

However, as we move closer and closer to the strike deadline of February 9, it has become apparent, as we've seen in The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star, that the passenger community is extremely worried about getting to and from work. It's the same in some stories in The Gazette. But our issue is not with the travelling public, the riding public, the riders and users of GO Transit, or of AMT in Quebec, in Montreal. It's with the employer, CN Rail.

It's not our intention to hold the travelling public hostage in a dispute that we have but which they have nothing to do with. We went back to the employer, CN, because they run the crews for GO Transit, for example, and AMT. They're our members under contract. We proposed to CN that we find the solution to the problem of these riders being caught up in a labour dispute so that they won't get stuck.

In other words, we went back to CN again and proposed that we look at a maintenance of activities agreement for the commuter services. We're still waiting for an answer. The commuter population that uses the service is hanging in the balance at the moment as we await an answer. I understand that CN is going to be here tomorrow in front of the committee, so perhaps you can ask CN tomorrow if they have an answer. We'd like to know as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have. I want to thank Madame Lavellée for asking some questions. We're making progress here. This is good.

We're going to move to Mr. Martin, for seven minutes, please.

[Dr. Richard Bell]

Mr. Chair, did you want me to respond to Caroline's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Make it a quick response before we go to Mr. Martin.

[Dr. Richard Bell]

I thank her for her comments.

My point on proposed subsection (2.4) was that the English section should read the same as the French section. I think that's been pointed out before.

With respect to section 87.4, it basically deals with immediate and serious danger to safety and health. I'm talking about essential services. The Government of Canada recognized that essential services were necessary for Schefferville. This is why they invested in a railway. It has nothing to do with talking about immediate danger to safety and health, but essential services.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, you have seven minutes, please.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

In what I've heard so far in these deliberations, it seems to me that what everybody is looking for is stability. In industry and in the economy, from time to time we find ourselves in dispute over levels of pay, etc. We get to a point where there is a strike, and then there is instability and difficulty in the community where that strike occurs.

I would guess that the chambers of commerce in particular would be concerned about that. Their overarching interest in this would be to maintain as much stability as possible, with as few lost days as possible. I would guess that would probably be the case as well when it comes to essential services. Probably the fewer strikes that are staged, the better for everybody concerned.

When I was here last week, I asked for some evidence that moving to a ban on the use of replacement workers would either increase or decrease the possibility of strikes. We have some numbers here today that I would like to put out, and then maybe I'll get some response from particularly the chambers in this instance.

In Ontario, from 1990 to 2006, remember that there was a short period of time between about 1993 and 1995 when there was a ban on replacement workers. The total number of lost days due to work stoppage was 12,443,840. In this sector that we are talking about here today, which represents about 6.7% of all Canadian workers, there were 7,800,050 lost days between 1990 and 2006.

Then we move to the jurisdictions where there is in fact a ban on replacement workers. Let's look at Quebec, which represents 21% of all Canadian workers. We get to 8,863,180 lost days. In British Columbia, where we have 11% of all Canadian workers, the number of days lost to work stoppage was 5,230,176. It would seem to me that these figures would indicate very clearly that where you have jurisdictions that have moved to a situation in which you are not allowing replacement workers, the number of lost days is significantly lower. Could any of the chambers respond to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do Hamilton and Winnipeg want to respond to that?

[Bill Gardner]

Winnipeg will. I'm happy to respond to that.

Yes, stability is desired, and fewer strikes are, generally speaking, better than more, and shorter strikes are better than longer strikes. Nevertheless, no attempt to replace the current strike and lockout option has succeeded in the long run, in my experience in Manitoba. You will be familiar with alternative attempts, such as final-offer selection. Ontario has tried interest arbitration. Anything that changes the balance where a strike or a lockout is mutually distasteful to the parties tends not to work well in the long run.

Listening to the statistics, I am reminded of the old adage that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The problem with those statistics is that you don't know what other variables are in there. There would be many reasons for more or fewer work stoppages, so those statistics alone aren't going to tell us anything about the effects of any replacement worker legislation.

The more important question to me—and I am going back again to the statistic quoted by the able presenter on behalf of the United Transportation Union—is that if the rate of strikes federally is around 3%, then what are we trying to fix? It ain't broke.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Martin, you have a minute and a half left.