Thank you.
The Canadian Employers Council is the voice of Canadian business on international labour issues and at the International Labour Organization, the ILO. The CEC has been actively representing the interests of Canadian business on international labour issues for over 80 years, since 1919, and the membership of the CEC represents a broad cross-section of Canadian employers, many of which are federally regulated.
The CEC speaks on behalf of Canadian business at the International Labour Organization, which is the United Nations agency that promulgates international labour standards; at the International Organization of Employers, the IOE, which is the international body representing employers' interests before the ILO; and within the Summit of Americas process.
Our equivalent at the ILO is the CLC, the Canadian Labour Congress. The CEC and its members are opposed to Bill C-257 and believe that it should be rejected in its entirety. On substantive issues arising from Bill C-257, the CEC endorses the submissions of FETCO, Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications. We understand that Don Brazier, FETCO's executive director, provided a written brief and appeared before the standing committee on December 5, 2006.
The CEC's submissions before the standing committee are limited to relevant international labour principles that shouldn't form any review of Bill C-257.
I refer the standing committee to the CEC's written brief, which was provided in both French and English. In our oral comments today, we'd like to focus on two areas. The first is that Bill C-257 represents an unwarranted politicization of federal labour law reform. This issue was touched on briefly by Michael McDermott, the former senior deputy minister for the labour program, during his appearance before the standing committee on December 7.
It is the CEC's position that the politicization of labour law reform runs counter to the tripartite tradition that flows from international labour principles and has long been embraced at the federal level.
Secondly, it is the CEC's position that the principles of international labour law do not support a prohibition on the use of temporary replacement workers.
The ILO has never made an adverse finding against Canada respecting the use of temporary replacement workers, and it has not adopted any instrument that expressly prohibits the use of temporary replacement workers.
Regarding concerns respecting the politicization of labour law reform, unlike labour law reform in many of the provinces, federal labour law reform has avoided politicization. Instead, tripartite reform processes have been embraced within the federal system to ensure the active and meaningful contributions of employers, trade unions, and governments. Tripartism is focused on the process leading to substantive labour law reform. Tripartism promotes stability and balance in a labour relations system.
A commitment to tripartism is at the core of the ILO and is reflected in three important international labour standards, which are discussed in detail in the CEC's written brief. These standards promote effective consultations and cooperation among public authorities, employers, and workers organizations. These international principles help to illuminate why the politicized process underlying Bill C-257 represents a disturbing departure from the tripartite tradition that has existed at the federal level.
A strong legacy of commitment to tripartism in labour law reform at the federal level is reflected in the 1968 Woods task force process and report, as well as in the 1995 Sims task force report entitled “Seeking a Balance”, which has already been discussed at great length before the standing committee.
The CEC's primary concern regarding the process leading to the introduction of Bill C-257 is that it constitutes a politically motivated attempt to reform the code for the purpose of shifting the balance of power between employers and trade unions.
Regarding the lack of expert tripartite process leading to the drafting of Bill C-257, to the contrary, an expert tripartite process was conducted by the Sims task force report, which heard exhaustive argument in favour of and against the ban on temporary replacement workers. In the end, this expert tripartite process concluded that a ban should be rejected.
The CEC believes that Bill C-257 will in itself create instability in the federal labour law sector. If the bill succeeds, it will open the door for further changes coming not from a tripartite expert process, but as a result of a political process, similar to what was experienced in Ontario in the 1990s—an experience that I believe neither employers nor unions would want to see again.
In terms of international labour principles respecting temporary replacement workers, there are absolutely no guidelines, policies, standards, or laws at the international level that ban the use of temporary replacement workers. There are, however, ILO principles supporting the right to engage in free collective bargaining and also the right to freedom of association.
Although the Canadian Labour Congress has brought a number of complaints to the ILO regarding labour relations issues in Canada and in the provinces, it has never complained with respect to the issue of replacement workers. In fact, the majority of the complaints are largely brought in respect of back-to-work legislation and provincial laws that limit collective bargaining and strikes.
Prior to the implementation of the Sims report a number of complaints were taken to the ILO regarding back-to-work legislation in the federal sector. Since Sims, there has not been one instance of back-to-work legislation—