Human Resources Committee on Feb. 7th, 2007

[Ray Pennings]

There are two things, in terms of balance. Obviously, the use of replacement workers affects the strike. I've been in a strike situation along the way, and it's ugly. It's difficult from all sides; emotions are raw. Obviously, once you're in a strike, both sides do whatever they can to win. Both try to respect the law, yet we all know that sometimes the boundaries are tested rather severely in strike situations. I don't think the fault lies on either side of the labour relations equation. There are examples on both sides that could be pointed to.

I would point to the effect of this legislation—not its effect when it's actually used, but the effect it will have on the bargaining process, which I think is more significant. There are two sides to that as well. On the one hand, there may be situations in which it is preventative, and it may prevent or shorten a lockout. On the other hand, I can also anticipate situations in which it will lead to more stoppages. We could both lay out scenarios, and obviously none of us has a crystal ball to lay out the future exactly.

I was involved in one dispute where the essential problem was within the union, along the way. It was a 51-49 sort of division within the union, and at the end of the day there was nothing it could ratify. It ended up going to a labour stoppage.

Those were internal issues that had to be sorted out, and it took the discipline of not having some paycheques to cause some degree of consensus to come within the bargaining units. I guess that's the bottom line.

Labour law needs to be broad and comprehensive and to address all sorts of given situations. We can pull data on either side of the equation, but every circumstance is unique. I suspect that the introduction of this will actually change the balance leading up, and in ways that I'm not sure anyone can totally and accurately predict, which is why you have all the competing numbers in front of you that you need to parse through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

I want to welcome Gary Merasty, who will be replacing Mr. Dryden on the committee. Gary, welcome. You now have five minutes.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to this committee, as was pointed out, but also I've been a member of the steelworkers union for a number of years, working in a mine in Flin Flon.

I've been involved in the private sector as well, in different capacities in corporations, and have been on the board of an airport authority. I get both sides of this issue. I hear a lot of discussion and get a lot of correspondence directed my way.

Of course, key—and I don't expect an answer on this one—is the definition of “essential services” and where we're going to go with it, and what happens with airports and others.

The second issue is of course the impact on economically marginalized areas of the country. There are pros and cons to this.

But even if I have both pro-union and corporate experience, the question is, human nature being what it is, that in using replacement workers, it's implied that the employers use them as a hammer against the striking workers. Mr. Lake asked whether you swing the pendulum the other way by now taking that away and giving the hammer, human nature being what it is, to the unions to use against the employers.

This is a question I get from both sides. In a Saskatchewan context—it's a big union province—you get both sides.

Maybe Mr. Roy could speak to that. I know he's been trying to cut in a few times to interject on some answers. And maybe you could give me your perspective on the answer given earlier.

[Daniel Roy]

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to answer a question.

I'm a plant worker. I've worked in plants in Sept-Îles, on the North Shore, in Quebec, for 15 years. For as long as I've worked, the Quebec Labour Code has prohibited replacement workers. I've taken part in strikes, and the employer opposite us was an equally strong negotiator. When we went on strike, there were no replacement workers. That disciplined the parties, and forced them to sit down and negotiate in good faith.

I'll cite another example. On the North Shore, in Sept-Îles, the Iron Ore Company of Canada and the Quebec Northshore and Labrador Railway, a federally-regulated iron ore company, imposed a lockout in February 1994 to force workers to accept the company's conditions. The business hired replacement workers during the lockout. Helicopters flew over the workers during the night to bring in replacement workers. Bodyguards monitored the workers on the picket line. The result of all that was violence, dismissals and all kinds of violent measures. We focused all our energies on resolving all those situations rather than settling the collective agreement. For all cases under provincial regulation, replacement workers are prohibited because we don't want those kinds of situations. The parties are generally disciplined, and they know how to enter into collective agreements.

You have proof of that in Quebec. There is no revolution. I'm not telling you that business owners were happy when that happened. However, they learned to live with it, and there was no economic disaster or overthrow or revolution. On the contrary, that disciplined both parties and forced them to sit down around a table and to properly enter into a collective agreement.

In Quebec, we sign collective agreements without disputes between 95% and 97% of the time. We must have done something right. Before we had the law in Quebec, there were replacement workers in the 1970s. The people from Murdochville lived through the time replacement workers came and took the workers' place in the plants. That divided communities for years. That's what breaks up relationships between human beings. That's what breaks down the economic life of a region.

When a collective agreement is signed where there is a relationship of power in which the parties are equal, this ensures that the parties are disciplined. It isn't a miracle. Come to Quebec and you'll see that this has been successful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to Mr. Brown, who has the last five minutes for today. Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

I have three questions, if I could hear from Mr. Bedard and Mr. Pennings on them.

The first question relates to my experiences in Ontario. As an Ontario MP, we've had some unfortunate experiences with a ban on replacement workers. I remember vividly 1993 to 1995 and the economic recession that occurred at the same time. It is very interesting to note that Premier Harris reversed that economic mistake. Even more recently the Liberal Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, chose the same approach as Premier Harris and decided that it wasn't an appropriate route to follow by banning replacement workers. So I want to get your comments on that, first of all, why you think Ontario has picked that approach.

Secondly, I have a major auto sector very close to my riding. One of the concerns I know they have is not just the potential economic recession you may have, but it's the investment that may not arrive. I want to get your perspective on how this affects potential investment. Do you believe that employers make a decision when they're looking at areas in which to invest and actually look at that criteria and look at regions that ban replacement workers? Is that something that would be involved in their decision-making process?

Thirdly, when you look at the broader balance of collective bargaining, what are your concerns about how this may skew the delicate balance we have? Right now, we have been moderately successful in seeing labour peace in Canada, if you look at it today compared to 25 years ago. One concern I have is, if we see this legislation become the law of the land in Canada, are we going to see more use of back-to-work legislation? Are you concerned that we're going to return to a day where that's a more active recourse, by skewing the balance?

[Steve Bedard]

If I have the questions correctly, in terms of the auto plant, definitely.

We're talking about the federal sector, and I've heard the comments made. I'll reiterate what I said earlier, which was that the federal sector is not like any other sector in Canada in terms of labour jurisdiction. It's the backbone of Canada, across all provinces. So the auto plant...and that's part of the issue here: we're talking about the federal sector. If something grinds down the federal sector with respect to the key services provided by federal sector employers, the auto plant stops having trucks coming to its door, the railroad can't deliver, so it grinds that plant down. And it's not a party to the dispute. In fact, it's in a different jurisdiction, in terms of labour relations. There's definitely an impact on virtually every business in Canada from labour disputes.

I'd like to also make a comment that the examples we're using, some of the examples that are being brought up, are not applicable to the federal sector. The comments have been made that we've had relative labour peace. Every employer and union goes through cycles, there's no question about that. But the federal sector labour relations are seen by most jurisdictions in Canada and internationally as extremely positive. That's the federal sector.

So in terms of investment decisions, labour issues do factor in. That would be part of the consideration, no question. I'm sure it is a consideration. It was talked about in terms of the submission, I believe, from B.C., so I assume it is. I'm not privy to that.

In terms of the balance that's achieved—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have one minute left, Mr. Bedard.

[Steve Bedard]

—there's no question you will see—Because essential services are not covered off under section 87.4, the unions rarely sign them without threats, and most collective agreement negotiations in Canada do not have a letter of agreement on maintenance of activities. That's the reality. They're not reached.

So you will have a balance.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Do you have a quick comment?

[Ray Pennings]

Sure, let me just make a quick point on each.

In terms of linking economic data—there's economic prosperity data and there's labour stoppage data—to the present, you can run regression analysis and ask, is this connected or not? There are complex mixes of things, so I'd hesitate to jump to say the presence or absence of one piece of legislation either made things great or made things terrible. There's a whole mix of things--and that goes into the investment, as well.

Jumping to the third thing, what we really need—and I reference that in my presentation as well—are vibrant worker-representative organizations that deal with some of the skill challenges, some of the benefit challenges. In a world of increasing labour portability—people don't work under one union contract or for one employer like they used to—we need to rethink some of our labour organizations and how they fit into the new modern economy. I am quite sure that whatever the answer is, it's not going to be helped necessarily by the passage of this legislation

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, and thank you very much.

I'd just like to take the time to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes just to clear out the witnesses, and then we're going to have a couple of motions that we need to deal with to deal with some of the legislation coming up.

I would like to thank the witnesses once again. Have a great afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I just want to let you know that the legal opinion that Mr. Bedard talked about will be distributed. He did have it in both official languages.

What we need to do now is move three motions that will help in terms of letting people know, and certainly the clerk in terms of trying to get amendments in.

The first motion we have before us is that the members of the committee submit to the clerk all of their proposed amendments to Bill C-257 no later than February 14, at noon. Mr. Silva will move that.

The reason is that we have the council in on the 13th. What will happen is that if we get hundreds of amendments, we may have to go all day Thursday. But it is still on, right now, that we're going to start on Wednesday afternoon, on the 14th. So that's the case. I don't anticipate a ton of amendments, but stranger things have happened. But we do need to set a timeline. Those amendments can be tabled now.

If there's no discussion on that, I will just call the vote.

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

I'm sorry, but I didn't hear what you said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Silva moved that we hear amendments only until the 14th.

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

If I understood correctly, you want to postpone the tabling of amendments until February 14. Did I hear correctly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No. We just want to receive amendments no later than the 14th. We have to have a cut-off time so that the clerk can organize that. They can be tabled any time.

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

Would that be the thirteenth?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It needs to be the 14th, because people are going to be listening on the 13th to the council. It will be Tuesday afternoon, so we need to leave it until at least noon the next day. We can't leave it forever. I believe that will be enough time for the clerk to get those amendments organized.

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

I'm very sorry, Mr. Chair. Normally I understand quickly, but I don't understand exactly what you want.

The schedule still provides that we'll begin the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill next Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. That's good. So the amendments must be tabled before the fourteenth or else time will be too short. We'll only have a few hours to react. Ideally, then, amendments should be tabled on the thirteenth, on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The only challenge is that we have a technical briefing on the 13th from the officials, from 3:30 to 5:30. I don't anticipate a lot of amendments. We have made provision, though, that if there are too many amendments, we will sit all day Thursday. The date to get this done is this Thursday. We will be done by 5:30 on Thursday. That was the motion as read before.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just to clarify, my understanding is that because we're hearing witnesses on the Tuesday who may affect what we want to say for amendments, we probably need to hear them. You may have some amendments ready to go before that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Exactly.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

—in which case you can get them in, but just on the chance that something comes up at the end, we'll have a deadline that allows us to hear all the witnesses and still gives you the following morning to get them in.

You could get them in earlier, but it just gives you that little bit extra in case something comes up at the end when we hear the last technical witness of the day before.