:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable members, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss Bill .
As you know, if adopted this bill could have serious consequences for the conduct of labour-management relations in the federally regulated private sector, and I think that it is important that we all take a considered look at these consequences before any irrevocable decisions are made.
Labour legislation obviously impacts both labour and management and any law affecting their relationship must take into account the aspirations of both parties. But the impact of labour management relations goes beyond the domain of the two parties; they affect national economic and social outcomes. They affect production, employment, wage gains, profits, individual income, productivity and competitiveness, to name a few of the key elements of an economic and social system.
Mr. Chairman, our government is based on principle. In the context of labour management relations, there are two key principles that apply: balance and evidence.
The current provisions of Part I of the Canada Labour Code came into being after a long and considered study that included a Task Force chaired by Andrew Sims, a former chair of the Alberta Labour Relations Board. The Task Force report, entitled Seeking a Balance, attempted to do exactly what its title said—to balance the interests of both employers and employees fairly. Even the Task Force did not reach unanimity on the issue of replacement workers, but the majority report recommended a provision that would give employers the flexibility to meet their operating responsibilities, while preventing them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives.
I am going to repeat these three short lines because they are important: allow employers to meet their operating responsibilities while using replacement workers, but not in a fashion that would undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives. That's what you call balance.
The current provisions of the Canada Labour Code are based on this very reasonable compromise recommended by Mr. Sims. Part I of the Code is the product of a considerable effort to address the interests of all stakeholders, not just the interests of one stakeholder at the expense of all others. Bill would substitute a very one-sided approach, and would undo the years of work that went into developing fair and balanced labour legislation at the federal level.
The industries that fall under federal jurisdiction operate in many essential sectors such as telecommunications right across Canada, not just in one province; transportation Canada-wide; grain handling; and longshoring. A work stoppage in any of these industries causes significant disruption, not just for the employer but for the many Canadians who depend on the effective and efficient operation of these key infrastructure industries.
Before the 1999 amendment to the Code, there were numerous work stoppages in the federal jurisdiction that required Parliamentary intervention in the form of back-to-work legislation, in order to ensure that these important services continued without interruption. Since the 1999 amendments, there has been no such need for Parliamentary intervention—a fact that I submit, Mr. Chairman, indicates that the right balance between the competing interests of labour and management has been found, and should be maintained.
Bill would disrupt this fragile balance. It would remove the economic discipline that obliges unions and employers to negotiate reasonably. The balance found in the current legislation enables unions to put pressure on employers while simultaneously allowing employers to operate at some level during a labour dispute, without overly compromising the quality of services provided.
In other words, imagine there was a strike in Canada's port or railway services sector. That would have an impact throughout the entire country and would affect the economy from coast-to-coast. It is for this reason that we must consider maintaining the current balance when it comes to using replacement workers. The employer must not undermine the union's representativeness. Should the union deem this to be the case during a strike, it may lodge a complaint against the employer, before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.
Take air transport, for example. It is an important public service which has a major impact on Canada's economy. No one would dispute this. Let's imagine the baggage handlers and flight attendants of a particular carrier decide to go on strike. If all of a sudden these groups go on strike, the airport authorities will make an effort to continue to provide services to certain destinations, both domestically and abroad, and maintain some services, while being fully aware that things could not continue to operate that way for very long. And it wouldn't be in the interest of flight attendants or baggage handlers to unduly prolong the dispute. They would be aware of the stakes and what they might lose both at the bargaining table and with respect to the public's opinion should the conflict drag on. Both parties hold some sway in such a confrontation and this is exactly what strikes the balance we enjoy under the current legislation, which was enacted in 1999.
The use of replacement workers helps to maintain this balance without giving either party too much power. The proof is in the pudding: 19 complaints have been lodged with the Canada Industrial Relations Board over the past seven years, and only two are still being considered.
Yes, the system works. Some people who agree with me, however, maintain that air transport does not provide essential services such as those dispensed in hospitals and that air transport is not a matter of occupational health and safety. Nevertheless, no one can deny that air transport is an important service which, if not provided, will have nation-wide economic ramifications.
The economic impact of a strike in the port of Montreal or Vancouver, or a strike in the rail sector, whether we are talking freight or passenger transportation, would be just as devastating as the examples I referred to earlier.
What would we do in Canada if the 911 service went on strike? Do we have any essential services? The current bill does not include any. Everything would be paralyzed.
A failure to recognize the Canada-wide economic repercussions of a prohibition on the use replacement workers amounts to a failure to acknowledge the realities of federally regulated workers. If we ban employers from using replacement workers during a strike, we take away their right to continue to operate in an attempt to keep their business and the employees. This means potentially going under or having to lay off employees.
Where the use of replacement workers during a strike prohibited, as is suggested in Bill C-257, both employers and employees will suffer. The balance will be disrupted, and both parties' right to choose is taken away from them. How can you take away both parties' right to make a choice and still say that Bill C-257 has unanimous support? It simply isn't the case, and if you need to ask the question, you've got your answer.
A second principle that must be taken into account in determining whether a law should be modified or not is the principle of evidence. Before a law is modified, there should be clear evidence showing that the change will be beneficial. Mr. Chairman, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to show that the changes contained in Bill C-257 will bring any benefits to the labour-management relationship or to the national economy.
Contrary to the claims of supporters of this Bill, there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages. In fact, Quebec continues to have significantly more work stoppages per employee than Ontario, a province with a comparable economy that does not prohibit the use of replacement workers.
Secondly, in jurisdictions where legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers is in place, there has been no decrease in the average duration of work stoppages. In fact, independent academic studies have concluded that prohibiting the use of replacement workers during labour disputes is associated with more frequent and longer strikes.
Mr. Chairman, our collective bargaining system is built on the right of both parties to periodically test their respective economic strength, and the collective bargaining outcomes that result reflect the true worth of the employees' services in a free market place. If this discipline of economic reality is removed from the collective bargaining arena, then the possibility is heightened that one side will pursue a position that is so unreasonable that it cannot be sustained, and the enterprise will fail. Is this environment that we want to create for our key infrastructure industries? I say no, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the lack of evidence.
In closing, I reiterate that the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code represent an appropriate balance, they have worked well for the last seven years, and there is no evidence that legislation banning the use of replacement workers will reduce the frequency or duration of work stoppages. We are risking economic havoc if we tinker with the current legislation in the manner proposed by Bill C-257.
I therefore urge committee members to put partisan politics aside, to consider what is in the best interests of all Canadians and the free collective bargaining system that we all believe in passionately, and to refuse to proceed any further with this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
Let me come back to the use of replacement workers and the importance of the balance of power. If the current legislation, which was enacted in 1999, permitted the use of replacement workers and yet, conversely, a striking employee had no guarantee he would get his or her job back, then of course, there would be a lack of balance. It would not make sense.
Employers, however, may call on replacement workers when there is a strike. The purpose is not to undermine the union's representational capacity. And the employee, who is on the picket line, returns to his or her position at the end of the dispute.
I'd also like to talk about another aspect of the balance of power. It isn't always easy finding an employee to replace the employee who normally fills that position in a business. This places pressure on the employer. The employer faces the pressure of having to find a competent person to carry out the tasks the striking employee would normally be responsible for.
There is therefore pressure on the employer to settle the dispute and also pressure on union representatives and on the employees who are on strike. During a dispute, business suffers. That is a form of pressure. Workers have to bargain their return to work and, of course, maintain their livelihood and go on with their family lives and their activities in society. That's why the legislation was so carefully considered; a lot of thought went into it.
Your committee will be hearing from about 20 groups, some of which asked to appear before you. I found out that labour and management representatives, and other such witnesses, will have 20 minutes to make their representations. Just 20 minutes! Imagine travelling from Vancouver to appear for a mere 20 minutes before a committee; the witness would have seven minutes to present his or her brief and 13 minutes to answer questions. They are being squeezed in. This shows, in my opinion, a lack of respect towards these representatives who have taken the time to appear before you and explain the pros and cons of this bill.
:
Welcome minister. Thank you very much for coming this morning to talk to us about your vision of the anti-strike breaker bill.
On November 5, 1990 you were a Conservative member of Parliament for the same riding you represent now, and you voted in the House in favour of a bill tabled by one of your colleagues at that time, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, Mr. Louis Plamondon.
Your decision to support the bill was certainly not based on statistics, because Quebec's statistics show that in 1989, 6.9% of the person-days lost were by employees under federal jurisdiction. For statistics on the duration of disputes in terms of the number of days lost, you cannot put employees under federal jurisdiction being put in the same basket as those under provincial jurisdiction. Distinctions must be made.
Nor can we calculate the frequency, because labour disputes may last a day, a half a day, or perhaps three shifts. The real statistic is the number of person-days lost. Comparisons must be made within the same province between employees under federal jurisdiction and employees under provincial jurisdiction.
The Quebec government's statistics show that for certain years they are not very impressive. I will give 2002 as an example. In Quebec, workers under federal jurisdiction represented approximately 6% to 8% of the workforce. In 2002, 47.8% of the person-days lost were by employees under federal jurisdiction. That figure is a far cry from their 6% or 7%.
There have been better years, it is true: 14.2%, 8% and even 1.6% in a given year. However, the averages of the two charts that can be found on the Quebec government website are 12.2% and 18% respectively, from 1995 to 2004; but there are also years showing averages of 47%.
Minister, these are real statistics that must be taken into consideration.
I will make two comments and let you react to them.
The balance you are talking about is the employers' balance. The Sims report that you quoted did indeed result in an amendment to the Canada Labour Code aiming at authorizing the use of replacement workers. However, Mr. Rodrigue Blouin wrote a dissenting report on replacement workers. We are not talking about just anyone here: he is a great intellectual from Quebec and a professor at Laval University. His whole study is based on the fact that replacement workers upset the balance of power between the employer and the employee.
Replacement workers are intruders in a dispute that concerns two parties: the employer and the employees. These intruders always shift the balance of power in favour of the employer, and never, absolutely never, in favour of the employee.
And yet, the anti-strike breaker legislation that has been in effect in Quebec for 30 years, since 1977, forcefully demonstrates to what degree union peace can be achieved and this balance respected. In fact, in Quebec over the last few years, the long, painful and difficult strikes always involve businesses under federal jurisdiction. There was the Videotron employees strike; the Radio Nord Communications strike that lasted 22 months; the Cargill strike that lasted 36 months. There was even a strike, at CHNC, a radio station in Bonaventure, that lasted three years. And what did the 12 replacement workers do, after two years? They asked for their union certification.
This clearly shows that not only are replacement workers intruders as far as the balance of employer-employee negotiations is concerned, but also that they are workers unlike the others, since they were refused their union certification.
:
That is right, but businesses must also be able to function. I want to come back to the importance of balance. Here are a few studies.
The Landeo, Nikitin study from 2005 said that the availability of replacement workers reduced the probability of a strike.
The 2005 Singh, Zinni Jain study stated that the effect of replacement workers depended, amongst other things, on the kind of industry the employer was operating in, but that they could cause antagonistic labour relations.
Another study, the 1999 Cramton, Gunderson and Tracy study, said that the average duration of a strike was 32 days longer in jurisdictions where there was anti-strike breaker legislation, and that the probability of a strike was 12% higher.
It seems that strikes last longer where there is anti-strike breaker legislation than where there is not, according to this study published in 1999, at the very time that Parliament passed the legislation. There are other similar studies. You can see that that contradicts certain perceptions.
Moreover, as far as the average length of work stoppages is concerned, from 1975 to 1977, before the legislation was enacted in Quebec and British Columbia, it was 28 days in Ontario and 37 days in Quebec.
Between 2003—
:
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
Thank you to the minister for appearing today on this very important bill.
You made a comment about the length of time that the witnesses have. I would say that I'm not aware that it's different from panels or lengths of time that witnesses have on other subjects or bills. I think we're using the normal procedures to deal with this bill and to hear from witnesses.
However, based on your comments and hearing what you had to say today, your central point seems to me to be that you want to maintain the current balance. You talked a lot about “maintaining the balance”. I think this is a very central question to this bill, because the way I see it is that as it stands now, the lack of anti-strike-breaker legislation means that there isn't an adequate balance. When workers legally take strike action and then they see that replacement workers can be brought in, it seems to me that's what creates a lack of balance. It's something that then provides a major tool in favour of an employer to break the strike that has been legally constructed and legally taken. I think many of us see the anti-strike-breaker legislation as something that actually does maintain the balance. It does create a level playing field.
I'm quite surprised that the federal government, your department as the minister, would play into this climate of fear that I think is being created by some employers that this legislation is going to create chaos. That's what's underlying the messages that we see in the advertisements and that I'm sure we're going to hear about from some people today. It seems that you are adding to the message that it will be a climate of confusion and chaos. People will obviously be fearful of that.
What you haven't said is that where we have anti-strike-breaker legislation there is a process. For example, in B.C., where I'm from, there is a process for looking at what is regarded as essential services. On your example of looking at airport services, for example, in a federal jurisdiction, if this bill came into effect--we obviously have to look at amendments and so on--from what we know from other legislation, there obviously would be a mechanism to deal with essential components. I mean, we have that now in other jurisdictions. Again, that is something that's part of a level playing field and a balanced approach. I'm really surprised at the line you are taking here in terms of saying that you are maintaining a balance but actually being against a bill that would actually create a level playing field.
Secondly, I take it from your comments that you do support the principle of replacement workers. You do believe that they should be able to come in and in effect disrupt a legal strike. In hearing your words today, that's really what you're saying by speaking against this legislation. Are we to assume that you do support replacement workers, and that the employer should have the right to do that?
:
Ms. Davis, you believe that when replacement workers are used, the balance is upset. That is not true, particularly when the labour dispute is on a national scale.
First of all, Bill C-257 does not cover essential services. How are we to maintain essential services on a national scale? Must we establish them in every subgroup of workers? How would that work? Any small group of employees has the power to paralyze the economy. A small subgroup goes on strike in an airport, which then must shut down, and air transportation is suspended across the country. That would be a good example for another small group that provides service to passengers on board trains. It applies to the tiniest component of any service that we would find in this country. Internet service is suspended, and the economy of the entire country is paralyzed.
This is not an issue of minor importance, it is major. We must be able to maintain this balance by allowing the use of replacement workers. I repeat, striking employees, once the strike is over, return to their jobs. They are not fired; they are obliged to resume their duties. An employee who refuses to work during a strike cannot be penalized by the employer. The employee is protected by the current legislation.
I remind you of the importance of viewing things from a national perspective. What will we do if the baggage handlers are on strike and there is no more air transportation in the country at some point? How long can we allow that to last? How long can the country run that way? How long can we function if we cannot go to the bank? A day, two days, three days, three months, three years? How long?
That is what you, the members of Parliament, will be facing if you pass this legislation. That is what will happen. That is why it is important to maintain this balance. The current legislation is balanced. There was consensus between the parties, and at the time, the Liberal government and the Conservatives agreed. Everyone felt that, indeed, it made sense. All of a sudden, the Liberals were able... I do not know what the current leader's position is, but I appeal to him to bring people back to order. Recess is over; this is a serious debate.
Before telling us that we want to create a climate of fear, you have to face reality. I repeat: all of this is of national importance. You must see that. The economy must continue to function, and the legislation that is in place...
Do you believe that when the previous government analyzed this legislation in 1999, that it was done quickly and haphazardly? It was studied and reviewed at length. That is why we decided to allow for the use of replacement workers. On the other hand, after a strike, employees return to their positions, and the union representational capacity cannot undermine that. There is a kind of balance.
Had we said to employers that they could use replacement workers and that, once these people came to work, the ones left outside could stay there, then one could say that there was no balance and that we had favoured the employer to the detriment of the union and the employees.
However, that is not what parliamentarians decided: they had the good idea to go for a balance so that things would work, and they have worked since 1999. I will repeat again, there has been 19 complaints: 14 were withdrawn, 2 were rejected and 2 are still being studied by the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
:
Thank you, Mr. Lake. I think we can take another fact into consideration. Let us compare salary increases for employees under federal jurisdiction over the last few years to those for employees who are subject to anti-strike breaker legislation. I think that this is an interesting fact.
Wages increased by 2.5% in 2005 at the federal level. In Ontario, they went up by 2.3%, and in Quebec, 2.4%. Can anyone really maintain that employees under federal jurisdiction have the lowest wages, when compared to what is happening in the provinces, and that their wages are not comparable? I believe not. I believe that everyone can agree that there is a kind of balance in this respect, whether the person is a federal or a provincial employee. Whatever jurisdiction the workers are in, it works well. That is another important fact.
One could say that there is a problem if replacement workers did not have good wages compared to the others and did not benefit from the same wage. However, that problem does not exist. I will give those figures again. The percentages were 2.5% at the federal level, 2.3% for Ontario, 2.4% for Quebec and 2.3% in British Columbia, in 2005. In fact, you can see that the federal figure is slightly higher.
Let me tell you, sir, about another aspect. Once the bill had gone through second reading, business people started to realize what was going on. The President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony, stated the following:
This is a so-called remedy without a problem. And it's a remedy that will come back to cause great problems because it could result in the shutting down of vital transportation, telecommunications and financial services that are the backbone of our economy and which Canadians rely on.
Last week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents 90% of small- and medium-sized businesses, issued a similar opinion, stating that this had to stop because it did not make any sense. Moreover, Bill C-257 does not address essential services.
This is why you should not even do a clause-by-clause study of this bill, you should reject it. It does not make any sense.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister, for appearing before the committee this morning.
Minister, I listened closely to what you said and I'm trying to understand. This is the second time you have appeared before our committee. I have a hard time understanding your reasons for defending this point of view. I think that, like myself, you grew up in Quebec. You are probably younger than I am, but you probably know about the labour dispute which lasted several months at Robin Hood. The employer sent in strike breakers and goons. Shots were even fired.
You surely also know about the labour conflict at Commonwealth Plywood Ltd—which involved people being gassed—as well as the disputes at Robin Hood, La Presse, and Pratt & Whitney, where police intervened with an anti-riot brigade to coerce workers into leaving the building, when in fact these people's jobs had been stolen. This is what happened between 1970 and 1976. You probably heard about this through the media, as we all did. I was a labour relations negotiator at the time. Let me tell you that since Quebec introduced its anti-strike breaker legislation, this type of thing has not happened again.
As for essential services, there have been strikes, including in hospitals, schools, and at the Société des alcools du Québec. These labour disputes lasted a long time. Don't think that workers are savages. When workers realize that their company might be in danger, or that the safety of the public might be threatened, they negotiate essential services with their employers. Even before the notion of essential services, negotiations were held, which led the Government of Quebec to adopt legislation on essential services and create the Conseil des services essentiels on the basis of the experience of both parties.
Mr. Minister, you say that this bill does not contain any measures providing for essential services. But this is the responsibility of the government. If you believe that the bill which is before us needs additional safeguards and provisions relating to essential services, it seems to me that it is up to the government to propose them, as the Government of Quebec did in the past. It was not the unions or workers that introduced legislation on essential services; it was the government. It was a democratic debate and the new law struck a balance.
Do you intend to introduce legislation on essential services? Or are you waiting for the unions to give you a sign?
That last comment, that if this bill is adopted we'll end up paralyzing the economy, I think is a very irresponsible statement to make. I don't think there's any evidence that will happen if this bill is adopted. We do have anti-strike-breaker legislation in British Columbia. I've not seen any evidence that legislation has been harmful in any way. In fact, it's been the contrary. It's helped create an environment of stability, understanding, and labour peace. The only difficulty we've had is in the case of disputes under federal jurisdiction. Because we haven't had this kind of legislation, we have had difficulties. I just want to make that comment.
We should also remember that the bill we voted on was in principle, so we are talking about the principles of this bill. We're now at committee to look at the bill in detail and to consider what changes or amendments need to be made. So I would like to ask you that. It seems to me that as minister you have a responsibility to look at this bill and to consider what improvements, from your point of view, can be made.
The fact is that now, under the Canada Labour Code, under section 87.4, there is a provision whereby either an employer or a union can go to the CIRB if they haven't come to an agreement on what is considered to be an essential service. So there is a provision now that does exist. I'd be interested to know whether you consider that to be adequate or whether you think there need to be additional provisions.
I think it would be much more constructive if, as the minister, you would provide some helpful information to this committee as to what you'd like to see, in terms of this bill, to improve it, from your perspective. We may or may not agree with you, but at least we'll have the benefit of what your constructive analysis is, rather than making outlandish statements that this bill will paralyze the economy. I find it astounding to say that.
Mr. Minister, my understanding is that a small union such as baggage handlers at an airport could probably shut down the airport. I'm going to have to assume not all those units would be considered essential, according to the statements of the other members.
In that case, it raises some interesting scenarios. With regard to our airports, if you shut down Halifax and Montreal, for example, that would meanthat for things we may ship out of those places, like seafood, lobster, it would be better for people to be dealing with places like Boston or New York. Companies like FedEx or Emery or DHL wouldn't see those places as worthwhile to use as hubs. Instead, they'd be far more accommodated using Boston or New York.
As well, when it comes to certain goods, like textiles, for example, it makes sense that more jobs would go to China, as opposed to manufacturing textiles here, if the supply were interrupted or caused problems. Agricultural products could be obtained in other places as well. And even for some specialized industries, like Bombardier, frankly their machinery and tools and that type of thing would be easier to obtain through other places.
Even some industries, hydroelectricity for example, if it were affected by this and if Canada--and more particularly Quebec--became an unreliable supplier of hydroelectricity to the northeastern United States, they would be forced to find alternate sources and it would probably affect the pricing and what not.
I'm wondering if you could comment on some of those things.
:
Mr. Anders, I think that we are all able to imagine the impact of a strike in any sector of economic activity and more specifically when it is on a national scale, as is the case for the sensitive sectors that we are covering, which are under federal jurisdiction. One million four hundred thousand workers are under our jurisdiction, 600,000 of them are in the public sector and 800,000 in the private sector.
This is why, when parliamentarians studied the legislation in 1999, they decided, following the recommendations in the Sims report, to introduce a new concept that would allow the use of replacement workers—this should not be done with the intention of undermining the union's representational capacity—and granted the Canadian Industrial Hansard Relations Board the right to intervene immediately if such a thing occurred. I think that this was the ideal model for balancing labour-management relations.
People want to break this balance, but essential services are not provided for. Now establishing essential services is very complicated. Public health and security have always been considered as essential services. Our own health and our own lives must not be endangered.
But we will have to make a decision whereby essential services also include the Canadian economy. I do not think that in this room, in three or four days, we can imagine and envisage all the changes that we need to bring to the legislation in order to cover everything. This is a monumental task that we will have to undertake. This is why I think that the current bill must be withdrawn. The balance has been maintained since the legislation was adopted in 1999.
Let me remind you, sir, that in 1995, when Ontario decided to change the legislation back to what it had been, there was a good reason for it. Ontario had anti-strike breaker legislation. It changed its mind and withdrew it. In 2004, McGuinty's Liberal government reviewed the legislation and decided not to restore the anti-strike breaker law.
Moreover, we noticed that wherever there is anti-strike breaker legislation, disputes are more lengthy than in places where there is none. We must also remember that there have been long-drawn-out disputes in other places. Members should not think that anti-strike breaker legislation will put an end to long disputes. There are concrete examples, and I will take the opportunity to come back to them shortly. You will see that certain disputes can last a long time even if there is anti-strike breaker legislation. There is nothing that proves that these things change in the absence of anti-strike breaker legislation. There is no obvious proof. We cannot change legislation based on hypothetical evidence.