Human Resources Committee on Feb. 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I believe I've explained how we need to proceed.

Mr. Lake, continue with your motion, please.

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

The motion is that:

Bill C-257 fails to provide balance to both sides in the collective bargaining process and fails to address other issues reflected in the evidence presented by witnesses. Accordingly, your committee recommends, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, that the House of Commons not proceed with Bill C-257, an Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

It's astounding to me that we're seeing the term “ad hoc” taken to a whole new level. We're dealing with a badly flawed private member's bill that has been voted down--10 times, I believe we've heard--by Liberal majorities who could have brought in a very well-structured bill, one that was well thought out, through their majority governments over 11 years, I believe. They had the opportunity to bring in legislation like this, and instead they've chosen to wait a couple more years and vote for a private member's bill that has been proven to have many flaws.

Not only was that bill sent to committee, but we saw an attempt to ram it through the committee in three days. Basically there was two days' worth of testimony over three days before Christmas. Thankfully, some common sense prevailed and we were able to get a decent number of witnesses in here to hear a little more. Thankfully, we heard many of those witnesses testify that they had concerns about balance--the total lack of balance in this legislation and a complete lack of due diligence in terms of the process.

We heard that the original Sims review took four years in the late 1990s to go through section 1 of the Labour Code dealing with industrial relations. It was a comprehensive process, very carefully thought out and very consultative. It travelled across the country and heard people on all sides of the issue talk about this.

As we've heard more and more of the witnesses come forward, we've heard concerns about the provision of essential services in this bill. It's completely missing in the bill; there's been no thought given to that. We've also seen translation issues.

At first we heard that some people said the managers could work, but of course as we went through and studied it further, we realized the bill does not allow managers to work. It doesn't allow employees, who were employed in the business before and may not have wanted to strike, to keep their jobs and continue to feed their families. It doesn't take into account concerns about the impact on the Canadian economy and industries that are crucial.

Obviously, by definition, anything that is regulated federally is vital to the Canadian economy. We're talking about transportation. We're talking about rail transportation that farmers rely on to move their goods. We're talking about the mining industry. We're talking about many industries that are actually unionized, the workers of which will be severely impacted negatively by strikes in other areas. For example, workers in the mining industry would be impacted by rail strikes or air transportation strikes.

We're talking about what impact a shutdown of the ports on the west coast could have on our ability to import and export goods that are vital to the Canadian way of life. Obviously many of the people who would enjoy using those goods or enjoy the economic benefits of our being able to actually move and sell those goods are union employees who will be negatively affected by this. None of that has been taken into account.

We've heard total confusion regarding the essential services. We've heard claims being made that it's hogwash and that the union can write out—I can't remember exactly what it's called—an agreement and agree before they strike that they're going to protect essential services, but we know you can't count or rely on that.

There's no legal basis to rely on that for any kind of assurance whatsoever, that if a strike shut down the phone system we would have access to 911 services, or if a strike shut down the air transport system, food would be able to get into the northern reaches of Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, or the Yukon.

There are all sorts of concerns about these things, and they just seem to be totally ignored in a mad rush to take on this legislation that, from what I understand, almost no country in the world of any stature has actually supported or put into law.

That's the rationale behind moving this motion. As I explained before, there is an intention, in conjunction with this motion, to answer some of the questions and some of the people who really do want this process looked at properly.

I'm not introducing the motion, but it will be the following:

That the committee recommends to the Minister of Labour to establish a consultative process to conduct an examination of the concerns raised by witnesses, and the subject matter of Bill C-257, an Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code Replacement Workers.

We're saying that if we're going to do this, let's do it in a way that makes some sense. This makes no sense whatsoever. It astounds me that we're even in a situation where legislation this bad actually has a chance to be enacted.

I've read a little bit from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press by Sidney Green. In the interest of completeness of information, I'm going to read the article, because I think it touches on all of the concerns I have. Keep in mind that Sidney Green is a former NDP cabinet minister in the Manitoba government. By the way, the NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba right now don't have this legislation. Why haven't they enacted it?

This is what Sidney Green had to say on November 21, 2006:

The election of a minority government has resulted in a curious anomaly. The combined opposition is in a position where it believes that it can pass legislation in direct conflict with the position of the government. Indeed, the combined opposition, simply to flex its muscles, has given second reading to legislation that no party seeking to become the federal government ever included as a plank in its election platform.

Last month, by a vote of 167 to 101, divided substantially on government and opposition lines, the House of Commons gave second reading to a bill commonly referred to as anti-scab legislation. If passed, the legislation would affect workers under federal jurisdiction.

The history of union demands for such legislation is interesting. Until the mid-1970s, the battle cry of the labour movement was free collective bargaining. Nothing was more sacred to the philosophy of trade unions than the unrestricted right of working people in combination with one another to withdraw their labour and to seek public support for their demands. For years, labour leaders had been plagued by legislative nuances and court rulings that infringed on their freedom to do what all other citizens had the unchallenged right to do, namely to cease working.

I notice that Mr. Simms is trying really hard to listen to this and everybody else is talking and making a lot of noise. In the interest of showing respect for Mr. Simms, maybe we could have a little bit of quiet in the room so he can hear what I'm reading, because he's very interested.

I'll continue:

The labour movement regarded any third party intervention in their disputes as anathema. Labour resisted all governmental attempts to impose third party intervention.

In the mid-1970s, a drastic turnabout took place. Governments friendly to the trade union movement were in power. Trade union organizers could not resist the opportunity that friendly governments seemed to make available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I definitely can't prevent my colleague from speaking until 5:30 p.m. That intention is obvious.

To be more practical today and to be able to say that we've done something instructive in the past few minutes, I ask my colleague to suspend his speech so that we can examine the order of business on the other bills. If the clerk has to call for witnesses, in particular for the study of Bill C-36 and C-269, we'll have to give her the mandate to do so.

We could take the next five minutes to dispose of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard, that's not a point of order. That's a point of debate right now. I'm going to continue with Mr. Lake.

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

I'm just trying to figure out where I was here.

For years, governments favoured employers and passed legislation restricting unions. The trade union movement now reasoned that friendly governments should come to the aid of unions and restrict management. In other words, it was pay-back time.

The labour movement abandoned free collective bargaining and actively sought government intervention. They were confident that such intervention would remove some of the risks inherent in the free collective bargaining process. When free collective bargaining is the rule, employees have the right to withdraw their services. But when they do so, they run the risk of being unsuccessful. The ultimate risk is the risk of losing one's job. The employers had the right to resist union demands and to carry on their business. But in doing so, they ran the risk of losing. The ultimate risk was being put out of business.

This balance of ultimate risks was a most important feature. It demanded responsibility on both sides. It was the cornerstone and safety valve of the free collective bargaining process.

One of the first accomplishments of the labour movement's drive toward government-regulated bargaining was the so-called First Agreement legislation, passed in Manitoba about 20 years ago under the NDP.

The law stated that after a union was certified and bargaining with the employer was unsuccessful, an agreement could be imposed by the Labour Board. It does violence to the English language to characterize a Labour Board-imposed schedule of terms and conditions of employment as an agreement. But such niceties do not stand in the way of this headlong retreat from free collective bargaining.

Other legislation followed, each aspect of which drove additional nails into the now-sealed coffin of free collective bargaining.

Each new legislative stricture involves the participation of lawyers, bureaucrats, labour boards and ultimately courts. The so-called anti-scab legislation is the most outrageous demand yet, and lowers the coffin into the grave.

Now remember, a former NDP cabinet minister wrote this.

Under the legislation, an employer is prohibited from hiring an employee to take the place of a union member who is on strike. The employer cannot even hire a union member who refuses to join the strike and opts to work instead. When the strike is over, the employer must reinstate every employee who chose to go on strike. Aside from the fact that such legislation completely undermines the free collective bargaining process, it will, in the end, lead to results never contemplated in its conception.

I think that's the point here. We're talking about results that are not contemplated in an ad hoc piece of legislation like this, without proper comprehensive review.

He goes on to say:

There will be disputes as to whether a strike was lawful. It will have to be legally determined as to when a strike was over.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That is all the pain and suffering I can deal with today.

The meeting is adjourned.