Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I will be speaking mainly in English, although I could entertain questions in French. My notes are in French, so I may at times hesitate in finding the proper English words.
Let me start by saying that these are challenging times for unions, not only in Canada but across the world. Over the last 30 years, the unionization rate has dropped from something like 22% in the U.S. to less than 12%. In the United Kingdom it dropped from 51% to less than 30%. Similar drops have been observed in Germany, Australia, Austria, South Korea, France, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland. Only in Belgium, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have we observed a relatively constant level of unionization, of the percentage of the workforce being represented by a union.
In Canada the rate was around 34% in the early 1980s and has dropped to less than 30%. So the drop in Canada has been much smaller than it has been elsewhere, in particular in the U.S. and in the United Kingdom.
That's why I say that these are challenging times for unions as they try to find a way to adapt to a new economic environment characterized by globalization, information and communication technologies, cultural change, and new management practices. The world today is very different from what it was 25 or 30 years ago.
As you well know, in Canada we have two basic systems of union certification, one through compulsory secret ballot and another one through the signing of union cards. Each province has a slightly different system. Although the split is between those two regimes, the application of the regime is somewhat different from one province to the next.
It's fair to say that the most populous provinces, except Quebec, all have a secret ballot system. These include B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and also Nova Scotia. I'm not sure about Newfoundland. They were under a secret ballot system, but I remember that a couple of years ago, if not more recently than that, they were considering switching back to a card signing system.
It's clear that the arguments in favour of or against each of these systems are expressed in similar words, although they apply to different systems. For instance, if I take the access of the employer to the worker during the card registration or signing system, people who are favourable to the system of card signing argue that the employer may have privileged access to employees—much more than the unions or the union's organizers—when trying to get in touch with the employees and that therefore it is relatively unfair.
On the other hand, people who are in favour of a compulsory secret ballot argue that in the card signing system it is the union that has privileged access to workers, for workers hear only the point of view of the union, because the card signing procedure is relatively secret.
Maybe the major argument deals with intimidation.
People in favour of the secret ballot say that intimidation on the part of union organizers may be very important when workers are asked to sign cards, but union organizers or unions favourable to a card signing system argue that a secret ballot allows the employer to put pressure on its employees, to convince them to vote against the union, and that therefore this notion of intimidation is certainly one of the key aspects of the industrial relations board in terms of certification of unions.
Clearly intimidation has to be fought whether it comes from the union or from the employer. However, information provided by the union or by the employer is something that in a democratic system everyone should welcome.
In terms of timing, it is sometimes mentioned that the employer may pursue a strategy by which the industrial relations board or the organization responsible for conducting the vote would have a longer period of time between the accreditation demand and the formal vote. But in general, of course, the boards have been trying to hold those votes relatively close to the time at which the union can be certified.