Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

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

Just to pick up with the Hamilton chamber on what Mr. Dryden was speaking about, you said you had research and statistics that showed otherwise in terms of there not being a differentiation between the provinces. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Would the Hamilton chamber respond to that?

[Bill Tufts]

Could you repeat the question, please?

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

I was building upon what Mr. Dryden said. You said in your answer you actually have research that shows there is a differentiation in terms of walkouts and strike duration between some of the provinces that have the legislation and others that don't. Is that correct?

[Bill Tufts]

Our statistics are at a federal level. We're showing that there have been no legislated work stoppages since 1999. Some of the statistics we're talking about are within the specific regimes of the provinces of B.C. and Quebec. There might be different reasons for the differentiation between the provincial governments, for example, different types of provincial governments. I'm sure if we went back to look at the history, for example, of Ontario, with Bob Rae controlling the provincial labour situation, we would see differences between each provincial government. Maybe that's the reason. I don't know the exact answer on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

We're going to move to Mr. Lessard. You have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank our guests for coming today to tell us what they think about this bill.

I would like to start by comparing your opposition to Bill C-257 with the actual facts of the matter. Would it not be more advisable for you to advocate that Bill C-257 be passed for the following reasons? If we are trying to be objective, we have to realize that between 20 and 25 per cent of federally-regulated workers are unionized. We know that only 3 per cent of the collective agreements negotiated result in a labour dispute. Ultimately, we are talking about quite small numbers of people who could benefit from the legislation. You said as well—and all the parties here acknowledge this—that generally speaking, labour relations between employers and unions in federally-regulated areas are quite harmonious.

Your argument to justify your opposition to Bill C-257 is based mainly on the movement of goods and services, particularly air and rail transportation. We have seen that the other arguments did not stand up, particularly those having to do with banks and the 911 emergency service, either because these companies are not unionized, or because they come under provincial jurisdiction. So let us look just at the transportation sector.

We know that in both rail and air transportation, pilots, mechanics and train conductors must take seven to twelve years of training in order to do the job properly. Consequently, it is very difficult to replace them in the case of a labour dispute.

Is the company not shooting itself in the foot when it says that it will advocate the use of replacement workers rather than directly negotiating essential services with the unions?

Let us look at the statement made by CN, for example. If it rejects negotiations on essential services, how will it be able to negotiate with its locomotive drivers in the case of a strike? They cannot be replaced very easily.

I would just like to hear what you have to say about this. There's a weakness in this argument somewhere.

My question is both to the representatives of the Chambers of Commerce and to the people associated with rail transportation. On December 7, 2006, the Railway Association of Canada gave the example of your railway, Mr. Bell, and today you are telling us that your workers are not unionized, and your fear stems from the fact that a transshipment occurred in Sept-Îles, for example, where the workers are not unionized. The same argument applies to the Chambers of Commerce with respect to the two other rail companies.

I would like to hear your comments on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Who would like to address that? Do you, Mr. Bell, or do one the chambers?

Mr. Bell.

[Dr. Richard Bell]

I can perhaps start.

I don't have a copy of what the RAC had previously submitted, but we are non-unionized, and there is a unionized railway in Sept-Îles.

Mr. Lessard mentioned the time element required to train locomotive engineers and those who would be replacing them. I'm not sure exactly what he's getting at. If a railway needed to look for replacement workers, they'd have to find them within the management ranks, provided that they are qualified in that previous trade and are qualified by the rules and regulations and that they meet all the requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Does a chamber want to quickly add to that at all?

[Bill Gardner]

I'll take a shot at it, from Winnipeg.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you very much. Just give a quick answer, if you could.

[Bill Gardner]

In my initial submission, I indicated that I wouldn't purport to speak about what's good for the people of Quebec. Sir, don't you think that employers are the best judges of what's in their interest? When employers are as unanimously opposed to this legislation as they are, don't you think that should be given some weight?

In response to some earlier questions, let me ask a question myself. I still don't understand what has changed so dramatically from the 1990s, when the government, under the Liberals, considered this issue, addressed it, put changes into the Canada Labour Code, and didn't think it was necessary to go as far as banning replacement workers. And now there seems to be a need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I just need a point of clarification.

Mr. Lessard.

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

With all due respect, I think that you have not answered the question. We are not going back to the days when the Liberals were in power. Today, we have a bill, Bill C-257, and a Conservative government. This bill is now being debated in this committee. My question is clear.

When I think of the vulnerable position in which employers place themselves vis-à-vis the unions as they refuse to negotiate essential services, I feel that they are showing a predisposition to mistrusting their own employees and to doubting the success that is possible in establishing good labour relations. Would it not be an advantage for employers to negotiate essential services instead of relying on replacement workers? And if there is no advantage for them, why is that? We still do not understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have, Mr. Lessard. I'm sorry, we're way over time with that clarification.

We're going to move to Mr. Martin, for five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to follow up on the comments of Mr. Bell. I think he raised some important issues and put them on the table--for example, what will railway companies do when there's a circumstance where a remote community is isolated and is in need of supplies, food, etc.?

I'd like to hear from Mr. Secord in terms of some of those issues and how your workers would respond to and deal with that kind of circumstance. We've heard a lot about essential services here at this committee.

[Tim Secord]

As long as the chair recognizes that these comments are hypothetical, of course.

You're right, the issues that Mr. Bell has raised are really important, especially to his operation and the people who rely on that service. What I think people are forgetting is that section 87.4 in the code is already there. If an employer believes that a portion of their business is so essential to the community--for example, in Mr. Bell's case, getting people back and forth for community services, health services, food, etc.--all they have to do is go to section 87.4. If they can't get an agreement with the union then they have the right to apply to the Canada Labour Relations Board for an order to be issued by the board. They can make argument in front of the board, and the board can issue the order. That's the fail-safe that was built into the code in section 87.4.

Proposed subsection 94(2.4) now clarifies that. All it does is tweak section 87.4 just a bit so that nobody can abuse section 87.4. Where the problem exists is that employers seem to not want to apply the provisions of 87.4, and then after the strike takes place they want to call foul and say, “Wait a minute. We want to go to the board and apply 87.4 because all of a sudden we now know that these services should have been essential.” Well, it's too late, fellas. You had the chance under the code; there were criteria set out, and you should have used it. We are not averse, in our indication, in our actions of this last week...we are not shutting the door on the public. Our issues are with our employers.

In the example of the Quebec North Shore, which is the employer for our members that Mr. Bell's people are affected by, in this case, if the Quebec North Shore were faced with a labour dispute, then it would be Quebec North Shore that would have to apply under section 87.4 to seek essential services or a maintenance of activities agreement, and they would have to argue, on Mr. Bell's behalf, that that was the type of service that was essential for that community. Whether we agree or disagree with the employer—in this case, Quebec North Shore—Quebec North Shore can then take it to the board and the board can order it.

There's a fail-safe built into the system. Everybody is running around here saying the sky is falling--it's not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

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

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

That was the only question I had.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We're going to move to Ms. Yelich for five minutes, please.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Did you say you are bargaining right now, on February 7, with your union or with the CN? Did I hear that right?

[Tim Secord]

On February 9, yes.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

On the ninth you're going to be bargaining for wages?

[Tim Secord]

The ninth is the strike deadline.