Human Resources Committee on April 26th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Casson, please.

Oh, is Mr. Komarnicki next?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

Outside of the issue that this particular bill wants to make it retroactive to 2008 to cover a specific situation, which I think is always a questionable thing to do when you're dealing with laws that will be of general application, the central point to all of this is that in a labour dispute you have two sides, and one should be neutral in that. Because each party has some decision-making powers as to whether a strike happens or doesn't, and whether it continues or doesn't, it's within their power.

In fact, as I recall it, Mr. Sims, in the Sims report, heard all of the stakeholders, all of the employers, employees, and third parties who might have been affected, and came up with some suggestions for what ultimately became the Canada Labour Code, which tries to balance the rights in a fairly delicate fashion. It takes all kinds of things into account. And we've come up with what we now know as the Canada Labour Code. Beyond that, one tries not to involve oneself in a dispute.

Now, would you say, from what you see in the Canada Labour Code, that there was this balancing situation between employee and employee and that one should not cherry-pick, adding or subtracting one thing from it, without looking at the big picture?

[John Farrell]

I think that's a fair comment. I think that, in a labour relations sense, stability is quite important. The ability of employers in the federal jurisdiction to work with the Canadian Labour Congress to hammer out the way the Canada Labour Code operates or the way in which employment standards would operate is a very important arrangement or relationship that should go into the thinking of any labour laws.

My view is that if any labour laws swing from one direction to the next, whether it be in favour of unions or of employers, the swinging of the pendulum is what creates distress in labour relations. We should avoid at all costs having politicians pick little things that happen to be of particular interest to them, because it affects only a small portion of the general population. That causes a swing in labour relations that is not healthy for employers--

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Now, the other aspect--

[John Farrell]

--or unions.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You're involved with federally regulated companies and, of course, the Canada Labour Code relates to federal enterprises or companies. In terms of the successes of labour--both employer and employee at the federal level--from what I have seen among fairly large employers and large unions, there has been a fairly remarkable amount of success in negotiating appropriate agreements. Do you know what percentage are settled without strikes or lockouts on a national basis?

[John Farrell]

Fundamentally, very few labour disputes end up in strikes or lockouts. Let's put it this way: I think that the record in Canada has been getting better and better over the last 10 years. For the most part, in all jurisdictions, employers, employees, and unions are finding better solutions to problems.

A big factor influencing the ability of labour and management to work together effectively is low inflation. When you're in a low inflationary environment, you don't get the same kind of pressures on wage and benefits negotiations that you might in a economy in which inflation is quite high. That goes a long way to improving the relationship, and I think it has had a lot to do with the lessening of the number of labour disputes that we've had in Canada over the last number of years—as contrasted with the seventies and the eighties, for example.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Those are all the questions that I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We have about three minutes left.

The Liberals are next on the list. Are there any further questions?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I have a very quick one, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You probably just have time for that.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I want to go back to Mr. Farrell, because this area interests me. The neutrality issue we were talking about interests me.

Vale Inco has been on strike for 10 months now in Sudbury, as you know. This is under the current provisions. It doesn't seem to be impacting or worrying the strikers in regard to how long they're on strike. It seems that more fundamental issues are on their minds rather than whether they have that benefit or not.

I'm still not sold 100%. I'm trying to work out this neutrality thing. Could you give me more specifics about why you think that would be an issue? I've seen longer strikes in Toronto with the garbage strike. These things don't seem to keep the strikes short. There doesn't seem to be an impact there.

[John Farrell]

The current employment insurance provisions have a qualifying period of 52 weeks. The way it is set up, you have to be gainfully employed during those 52 weeks and making contributions to the fund.

If you're able to engage in a labour dispute and extend your entitlement for a long period of time, based on what may have happened two or three years ago in terms of your last employment and your last contribution to the EI fund as an employee, then you're going to be in a position where you're gaining an advantage if you're receiving benefits after a long period of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Mr. Farrell, for being with us. We appreciate the information you've provided.

[John Farrell]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

The meeting is adjourned.