Thank you very much.
Thank you to the officials for coming today. I'd like to pick up on a couple of points you're making.
You focused a lot on numbers, and you seem to be coming to a conclusion, or you're wanting us to believe a conclusion, that your numbers show that this bill banning the use of replacement workers hasn't had an impact. I think it's really important to note that numbers alone don't tell the story. You have to look at the labour relations climate in terms of what is happening at any particular time. I would draw your attention, and the attention of members of the committee, to your own tables that you presented today. I think it's very clear on page 5, in table 3, that in Quebec, when you look at the number of person-days not worked, you can see a very high figure--four million plus--in 1977, prior to the legislation coming into effect in Quebec, and then you can see a very sharp drop-off after that, going down to one million. Then there are some figures below that.
It seems to me that if you want to just argue numbers, you could use this table equally the other way around. Unfortunately you don't show the B.C. situation, because the B.C. legislation came into effect in 1993, so we actually can't do the comparison there.
The other thing I would add is that I think it's very clear that in Quebec there was a wave of work stoppages, particularly in 2005, because there were a lot of conflicts because of a major restructuring by the Quebec government that went on. So that produced a very different kind of labour relations climate, and I think you have to put that in the mix.
So I don't share your conclusion that this is just based on numbers alone. I think these numbers can be looked at in different ways, particularly in the table I've just pointed out. You can comment on that if you want.
The second point I'd like to raise and get you to respond to is that you seem to be saying that section 87.4 in the Canada Labour Code, which deals with maintenance of services, which we all understand to be the provision that deals with essential services, is very narrow. I think you said that in your comments. And it is correct that section 87.4 says “to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.
But let's be very clear. It's very similar in Quebec. And in B.C., the legislation says “safety or health” and I think they use the word “welfare” as well. Nevertheless, we are dealing with similar provisions. So I'm not aware that the narrowness of the scope of those pieces of legislation has in any way impeded parties from being able to declare what are essential services.
I would point out further that the CIRB itself, in a ruling dealing with the Montreal airport--its own ruling--raises the question of what is meant by the safety and health of the public, and the board itself is saying that in the board's view, the code gives it plenty of leeway by refraining from imposing any definitions whatsoever, and then it goes on beyond that. So even the board itself, in its own rulings, seems to have been quite satisfied that it has the scope to deal with the provision of essential services as defined in the code.
Finally, I would like your officials to walk us through section 87.4 of the Labour Code. We have heard so much conflicting testimony--that there are no provisions, that we can't deal with essential services, that it's not clear, that it's not fair--and yet I've read section 87.4, and it's very clear to me that the employer or the union or the minister can actually request the board to provide an intervention and define what those essential services are.
But rather than having it come from me, I would like your officials to walk us through how section 87.4 of the Labour Code works and who can do what in terms of defining what those essential services are.