Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

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

I was wondering if perhaps the other chamber would have a different.... Because the question that was asked earlier was if there was any evidence to show that in fact having a ban on replacement workers was helpful, then bring it forward and we'll look at it. So I've just brought forward some numbers that I think indicate very clearly that in jurisdictions where you have a ban on replacement workers you have more stability. And in terms of growing an economy and attracting investment, it seems to me, certainly from my work at the provincial level, that what you're looking for is a stable labour relations climate. Certainly British Columbia--we had somebody speak to us here when I was at committee a week ago--said their economy is booming. I think the economy in Quebec is doing quite well too, if I understand correctly.

[Bill Tufts]

We don't understand what the problem is. We don't understand what needs to be fixed. Our statistics show there have been zero labour stoppages or zero labour disputes that had to be legislated back to work, compared to the period of time before the Sims task force prior to 1999, when there were 17. Since 1999, there have been no legislated back-to-work labour disputes. We think the system is working well the way it is. We see no need to change the current system, and to support the members that we have at the chamber of commerce, we feel that the system is working very well. We don't see a problem. We're happy with the status quo and we feel that to make a change could be devastating and very damaging to the Canadian economy. It doesn't matter if it's a bank that's shut down, if it's an airport that's shut down, a railway, or a port. The potential damage to Canada's reputation on a world level far outdoes any other issue here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Tufts, and thank you, Mr. Martin. That's all the time we have. We'll have to catch you on the second round.

We're going to move to the last questioner of the first round. We have Mr. Lake, seven minutes please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is going to be for Mr. Secord.

On Thursday I was reading to the committee about a letter from Mr. Sidney Green, a former NDP cabinet minister from Manitoba. He wrote an article in the Winnipeg Free Press expressing his concerns about this legislation, and talked of political games and disruption of balance, lack of fairness, among other things. At the end of his letter, he writes:

But that will not be the end of it. Just as violence begets violence, legislation begets legislation. When the unseen consequences of the legislation begin to raise their ugly heads, there will be amendments upon amendments in an attempt to make the unworkable work. Each of the amendments will spawn further difficulties and more legislation. Industrial relations will shift its locale from union meetings, negotiating tables and picket lines to lawyers' offices, board meetings, court rooms and other locations far removed from the workplace. The employees will have exchanged freedom for an institutionalized, bureaucratized and regimentalized system of industrial relations. In the end, it will have proven to be a bad bargain.

He's speaking to your members. Not only does he say this is bad legislation coming out of a unique parliamentary situation, but it's even going to hurt your members. What are your thoughts on that, Mr. Secord?

[Tim Secord]

First of all, you mentioned he was speaking to my members.

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

Yes, this is a former NDP cabinet minister from Manitoba.

[Tim Secord]

Former? That's probably why he's a former member, because he said silly things like that. That's probably why he's not a member today.

Honestly, Mr. Lake, I don't know what to say. Quite frankly, I'd think he's out of touch with reality. We've got a serious imbalance in this code. I heard today and I've read some of the evidence from the previous sessions, and there was a lot of “Chicken Little, the sky is falling” kind of stuff, how essential services weren't addressed in this bill, and they were referring to proposed subsection (2.4). But proposed subsection (2.4) of the bill is actually complementary to section 87.4 of the code. It actually builds on the language of the code and clarifies what the intent of section 87.4 was. I mean, that's the beauty of this bill.

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

You say it's imbalanced. Nearly half a decade of work went into the current legislation. Since 1999 there's been no back-to-work legislation imposed. You even said we only have a 3% strike and lockout rate right now.

Witnesses on all sides have said that this piece of legislation we have in front of us is flawed. Even people who are in favour of the legislation have said that it's flawed. There's no essential services provision. There's none. There is confusion between the French and English versions, total discontinuity in fact. There are different interpretations as to what clause 2.4 actually means. I think we've developed a clear understanding now that it means managers can't even work, beyond turning on the lights.

So the question I have is what's the point of this? I think it's been asked by some of the other witnesses today. What's the point of the legislation? Paul Forder from CAW, who you might know, came before us prior to Christmas, and I think he shed some light on this. Something he said, talking about clause 2.4, was,

If the operation can't function with replacement workers, that's fine with us. We'll be able to get a settlement earlier. That's something that all members should be interested in pursuing. That's the whole purpose of the legislation.

The whole purpose of the legislation is basically one-sided. It's to create a one-sided situation.

Mr. Bell, I want to speak to you for a second about the balance, and I'm particularly interested in your situation. Can you speak to the balance that exists now versus the balance that would exist under this legislation? For example, if the union were to go on strike, what options would you have as a company under this new legislation, this proposed legislation?

[Dr. Richard Bell]

If the Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway went on strike, we could not get the train out of Seven Islands, as we actually take the train 225 miles up the line. They have to run the train. If they can't provide workers, replacement workers, or management to run the train, we're stopped.

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

How does that speak to the balance at the negotiating table then?

[Dr. Richard Bell]

In what sense do you mean?

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

It seems to me--

[Dr. Richard Bell]

I do not negotiate with the Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway.

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

Fair enough. That's true. You're talking about something that's outside of your control there.

Actually I want to move to the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce for a second. I'm thinking about their unique area and their situation. I'm particularly envisioning a strike or a lockout situation in the railway transport industry or the ports there, and what impact that might have on, for example, the steel industry and the workers in the steel industry.

[Len Falco]

I'm Len Falco from the Hamilton chamber.

That would have a devastating impact on the steel industry in particular, but also on a lot of the other industries that rely not only on the steel but the related...and on the communities around us.

As the Hamilton port is a central distribution hub for a lot of product and supplies and materials through to the U.S. border, through the St. Lawrence Seaway, that situation would just bring everything to a major standstill. It would be, as I say, devastating.

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

How much of the economy of Hamilton is reliant on the transportation industry there to move their product? What percentage are we talking about?

[Bill Tufts]

Our statistics show that it's almost 4% of Ontario's total GDP and 30% of the greater Hamilton region's GDP, which indirectly or directly impacts on a daily basis 220,000 jobs. That's the extent of what we're talking about here, and that's just the port. That doesn't include transportation via highways or transportation via airports, for which Hamilton is a major hub as well.

So the impact, in our opinion, would be huge, a fact that is frightening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, gentlemen from the Hamilton chamber, and thank you, Mr. Lake.

We're now going to move to the five-minute rounds, and we're going to start with Mr. Dryden. I believe he's going to share his time with Ms. Dhalla.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I have one question...probably for the two chambers, Mr. Gardner and Mr. Tufts. As everybody has said in their answers, they're looking for balance and they are trying to determine whether this shifts the balance. We're hearing arguments on both sides.

I asked earlier for information about the different jurisdictions that have changed: Quebec being one, since 1977; B.C., in the nineties; and then Ontario, back and forth in the nineties. What was the result in each instance when the change happened?

We have the Canadian Bankers Association's submission here. All of you have said there's a general, very significant downward trend in terms of lost days in every jurisdiction. What's quite clear from the graphs is that essentially there's not really any significant change at all in those jurisdictions that have made the change, as opposed to those that haven't.

I hear very strongly the hypothetical, the possibility of disaster, but labour relations are about avoiding disasters. It shows, from these graphs, that in Ontario and Quebec and B.C., in every instance, those disasters have been avoided, whether this has been in place or it hasn't.

Tell me again, why. I hear your hypothetical, but it is quite clear that there really isn't a significant difference, year-in, year-out, from those jurisdictions that have changed and those that haven't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Hamilton, go ahead.

[Bill Tufts]

This is Bill Tufts from the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce.

Honourable member, I would respectfully disagree with your assessment. Our statistics show that during the period of the Sims task force, indeed there was a period of major labour upheaval. There were 17 occasions on which legislated work stoppages had to be ended and those employees put back to work. Since 1999 there have been no incidents of emergency back-to-work legislation.

In our opinion, after a half decade of consultation that led up to the Sims task force, the system is working very well. In fact, any changes at this point will open the door for what you're indicating in terms of potential risks or liabilities. Why even open the door to those potential liabilities?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Look at the number of lost person-days. In Ontario, from when this begins back in 1976, it changes a little bit from year to year, but not much.

Anyway, I'm sorry, I've taken too much time here.

Ruby.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Dhalla, for a minute and a half.

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

I would actually ask a similar question to what Mr. Dryden posed, but to the union. As the union you represent workers from all across Canada. Have you done any studies, or do you have any type of research or evidence to show the impact on your particular workers in terms of strike frequency or durations between British Columbia, Quebec, and other provinces that don't have the legislation in place right now?

[Tim Secord]

The difficulty in answering your question, Ms. Dhalla, is that almost 100% of our members are in federal jurisdictions, regardless of the province in which they work. They work for Canadian National, for example, and the contract would be coast to coast. So I guess the short answer is no, and that's the reason why.