Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning members of the committee.
My name is George Smith. I'm currently a fellow in the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University. I'm also an adjunct professor in the School of Industrial Relations and the School of Business at Queen's University where I teach graduate courses in collective bargaining and strategic human resource management. Prior to joining Queen's in 2010, I practised labour relations for 37 years on the front line of Canadian business where, among other responsibilities, I acted as the chief management negotiator for Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway, and CBC/Radio-Canada. I've spent virtually my entire life studying, practising, and teaching labour relations in the federal sector and it is that lifetime of experience and study that inform my comments today.
I'm here on a matter of process and what I see as a disturbing pattern of random intervention and piecemeal change to the Canada Labour Code that flies in the face of decades of consultative and consensus-based reform of which I was part. That consultative process was developed and supported historically by both Liberal and Conservative governments with recognition that in the complex world of federal labour relations, legislative stability provided one less wild card for labour relations professionals to deal with.
While provincial jurisdictions—and we heard about some of them this morning—experienced legislative instability and politicized labour relations reform, which affected capital investment in those provinces, the federal sector has had an impressive record historically. Despite working with 19 ministers of labour—all of whom I met personally—and under seven prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, I experienced only a handful of significant changes to the Canada Labour Code and most often with consultative input.
The most comprehensive changes to part I in recent history were the result of a full consultative process chaired by Andrew Sims with labour and management co-chairs producing a report seeking a balance, which formed the basis of legislative reform. That tripartite consultative process is recognized internationally as a model of labour relations legislative reform. Unfortunately, that model and the labour relations stability that accompanies it are now threatened. Federal labour relations risk becoming politicized as they were in Ontario, British Columbia, and other provincial jurisdictions. And last I heard, the federal sector is the leader not the follower of the provinces.
Bill C-525, when taken with the interventionist approach to labour impasses, changes in the way labour negotiations are conducted at crown corporations, and the way unions are funded, signal a new role for government as a player in the labour relations arena when they have historically been a neutral referee or facilitator.
We currently face a situation where the right to strike and the right to join a trade union are being threatened, all without any of the big-picture public policy debate necessary when challenging such fundamental Canadian rights. The irony of this rush to judgment approach is that it's justified on the basis of the economic recovery. But the destabilizing and politicizing of the labour relations system in the federal sector will negatively impact the economy in the run long.
Today we are dealing with a private member's bill to amend a significant section of the Canada Labour Code without any view of how this change will impact overall labour relations policy in the federal sector, without any of the necessary due process and public consultation to examine the intended and unintended consequences to such amendments. Who knows, this legislation might even be a good thing. But without full exposure to, and scrutiny by, the affected parties, we can't judge its overall impact. We need to see and debate any supporting research or studies, and this simply can't be done under the current approach and with the current timelines. One thing for sure, this legislation creates another “us versus them” circumstance in the Canada Labour Code when that legislation still speaks of labour-management cooperation being its purpose and “....the encouragement of free collective bargaining and constructive settlements of disputes”.
My position is that this significant change to the Canada Labour Code requires a full consultative process with all potential amendments on the table, a tripartite consultative process that gives unions, companies, and citizens an opportunity to understand and react to proposed changes in their entirety. After such a consultation the government may decide to act but with full knowledge of all perspectives and with some comprehension of the potential impact that the amendments might have. This approach recognizes that consensus, to the extent possible, trumps unilateral action, which may be reversed by future governments.
In the words of Andrew Sims, “We want legislation that is sound, enactable, and lasting”.
My contention is that citizens, both unionized and non-unionized, and the key affected parties deserve to be part of that labour relations policy debate. If this is truly what Canadians want, then the Conservative government should welcome broader public debate. Canadians deserve nothing less.