It's in the proposed legislation under the definition of replacement worker. In terms of the legislation, it's people from outside the company hired specifically to replace workers on strike. It covers people in the bargaining unit who choose not to strike.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

It sounds as if you are telling us that management can go into the company. That's what I interpret from you. Is that the case you're trying to get at?

4:15 p.m.

Chair, Canadian Employers Council

Steve Bedard

No, it's bargaining unit employees who choose to cross the picket line.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

Oh, okay. That's fine. I just wanted to clarify, because I misinterpreted what you were saying, so thank you very much for that.

I must say, Mr. Pennings, I really enjoyed your presentation, and in particular the part about the importance of the process. I realize process is extremely important when you're dealing with any amendment to labour laws.

But I'm not government. We're not in government; we're here in the opposition. We're also dealing with a private member's bill, and there are many people who support it and many people who don't support it. At the end of the day, if the government wished to change the process and introduce their own legislation, they could have done so, and then maybe we could have dealt with issues of process. But right now the bill we're dealing with before this committee is a private member's bill, just so you can be aware of that.

In an ideal world, I agree with you, there should have been a different process in place to bring this legislation forward, no matter whether one feels in favour or against the legislation. So I thank you for bringing that point. I think that was a very valid point.

I don't have any further questions, but my colleague, Ruby Dhalla, does.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Thank you very much to everyone for their presentations. As my colleague said, they were helpful and provided us with a unique perspective.

I had a question for perhaps anyone on the panel who wants to answer it. Within the proposed bill that's being put forward there is a clause that states that companies would be fined up to $1,000 per day if they were in violation of the rules. What type of impact do you think that would have, and do you think it would have an impact at all on the businesses that have to pay the $1,000 a day?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Mr. Bedard.

4:15 p.m.

Chair, Canadian Employers Council

Steve Bedard

I was just going to say that $1,000, depending upon the size of the firm, I suspect would be an issue. Canadian employers, by and large, do not like to break the law, so most firms, I'm sure, would not put themselves in the position of being fined $1,000 a day, regardless of what the cost would be.

I think that in fact the issue at hand is more whether or not replacement workers should be banned. That would have a fundamental impact on every firm in the federal sector, and through that, most employers and most citizens of Canada.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Does any one else at all have a comment?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Ray Pennings

I would agree. I think the likely impact of this legislation is not going to be on the strikes once they happen per se. I think the more significant impact of the passage of this legislation would be, I suspect, for a period of time, an increase in labour disruptions. You could argue that it would affect the leverage both parties have at the table. You may see a changing of the balance of leverage that's there, and both parties need to sort through what that actually means.

Whenever you change the rules, as was mentioned in terms of complaints and legislation, but also in terms of what happens at the bargaining table, there is a testing process, and I would suspect you will see new legislation tested from both sides. Before that you know the set of rules that are there, and you know how far you can go and where the lines are and what the likely outcomes are. That probably will have more impact than the $1,000, depending on the company. For a company like Telus, in their strike last year, I don't suspect $1,000 a day was as significant as it would be for some of the smaller companies.

I would agree. I think most parties don't want to put themselves in a situation where they're breaking the law, and that's the bigger issue.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Do you think there should be a maximum that should be implemented at all?

4:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Ray Pennings

I was on the labour side of things, not on the management. I'm not sure where that threshold is in terms of the range of companies that are covered by this legislation, so I really wouldn't want to guess.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

I have just one last question, for the Canadian Employers Council. Could you please share with us the number of members that you have and, of those, the number who are subject to part 1 of the Canada Labour Code and the number who are unionized?

4:20 p.m.

Chair, Canadian Employers Council

Steve Bedard

I'm not sure I have all that broken down. We have about 40 to 50 dues-paying members. We're a voluntary organization, so we don't have any full-time staff. We engage any employer, whether or not they're a member. If there's something going on at the ILO, we'll go to the right employer in Canada.

Members are, for example, Canada Post, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which, of course, many federal employers are engaged in, NavCanada, CN, and telecommunications companies. Many of the large federal employers are also members of the CEC directly or through their associations.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you.

Mr. Savage, we'll get to you in the next round. We're going to move now to our next questioner.

We have Madame Lavallée, for seven minutes, please.

February 7th, 2007 / 4:20 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I quite agree with Ms. Davies that Mr. Vines, from the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, should have been invited next Tuesday rather than today. We're not concerned with exactly the same type of topic. I'm nevertheless going to ask him my questions. This is nice because you're listening to me.

Mr. Vines, I'm quite pleased that you've accepted the Chair's invitation. However, at a meeting that will be held next Tuesday, we'll be addressing more technical questions. You would in a way have been more at home at that meeting. Having said that, I'm nevertheless pleased to meet you and to ask you some questions.

As you yourself pointed out, subsection 87.4(1) of the current Canada Labour Code states: 87.4 (1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

The subject of this section, which appears in the left-hand margin, is described by the words “Maintenance of activities”. In your opinion, should it have stated maintenance of essential services?

4:20 p.m.

Regional Director and Registrar, Atlantic Region, Client Services, Canadian Industrial Relations Board

John Vines

The term “maintenance of activities” is used in the Canada Labour Code, but many people speak about the “maintenance of activities” in the Canada Labour Code as meaning essential services. There may be some dispute among parties as to whether there's actually any difference between maintenance of activities and essential services.

Maintenance of activities, as expressed in the Canada Labour Code, goes to the safety and health of the public. A book on labour terms in Canada put out by Sack and called Labour Law Terms defines essential services just in relation to ensuring the safety and health of the public.

There are other people who have a different definition of essential services, which they sometimes define as involving both the safety and health of the public as well as having an economic impact. Of course, the term “essential services” is not used in the Canada Labour Code. If you look in the margin, the only term that appears is “maintenance of activities”.

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

Do you think the term “activities” corresponds to essential services? You're familiar with the Quebec Labour Code perhaps? Does that correspond to the description of essential services in the Quebec Labour Code?

4:25 p.m.

Regional Director and Registrar, Atlantic Region, Client Services, Canadian Industrial Relations Board

John Vines

I'm not familiar with the Quebec labour code and the jurisprudence in Quebec.

I can tell you that the interpretation the board has applied to section 87.4 in regard to Marine Atlantic and various other employers involves just the protection of the safety and health of the public; it does not have an economic component.

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

To my knowledge, the maintenance of economic services is not considered as the maintenance of essential services under any of the labour codes.

Again, the Canada Labour Code states: (2) An employer or a trade union may, no later than 15 days after notice to bargain collectively has been given, give notice to the other parties specifying the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods that, in its opinion, must be continued in the event of a strike or a lockout in order to comply with subsection (1) and the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit that, in its opinion, would be required for that purpose.

It then talks about how to notify the other party in order to determine essential services. It also addresses the agreement between the parties, its wording and its filing with the CIRB.

Lastly, here's what it says about cases in which there is no agreement: [...] the Board shall, on application made by either party no later than 15 days after notice of dispute has been given, determine any question with respect to the application of subsection (1).

Is that in fact what you do?