:
Mr. Chair, let me first of all thank you for inviting me and my team here today to deal with some fairly important issues on replacement workers. We, the officials, are here to provide you with facts. Of course it is up to the government and Parliament to make decisions of a policy nature.
As you mentioned, I have my colleagues here with me from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service who deal with issues related to replacement workers, and I have a legal counsel from the Department of Justice who works with us in the labour program. Today with your permission, Mr. Chair, we have submitted two documents. These should be available to all by now.
The first document, Mr. Chair, is an update of the “List of Complaints Filed with the Canada Industrial Relations Board Illegal Use of Replacement Workers”. You may recall that a version of this document was submitted earlier, and this is an update to that document, bringing it into line with the most recent information we have.
The second document you'll find in front of you that we are submitting, and actually I would like to present the document to you today, is entitled “Key Observations Regarding the Effect of Replacement Worker Legislation on Workers”. This second document uses the data that the labour program has been collecting for a very long time.
Let me just mention three observations on the data that we are using. First, these data are collected on the same quality basis as data collected by Statistics Canada. Second, these data are used widely. Indeed, if I can mention it, as of April 1, 2007, the salaries of members of Parliament will be adjusted based on the data that we produced on wage settlements. Third, the data we produced on the key variables that I'm going to take you through are quite similar to the data that provinces produce for their own jurisdictions. Indeed I'm going to be comparing some information in these tables, federal compared with provincial. Our data are very similar, for example, to the data that Quebec produces. I can explain the technical differences between the two, but for all effective purposes they're basically the same.
What is the main message that comes out of the document I've given you? The main message is that we, the analysts, are not able to detect any positive impact of anti-scab legislation on workers; at least that is not what these data show. I'd like to take you through these tables and explain to you why we come to that conclusion. The data are in front of everybody, and you can draw your own conclusions from them.
On page 2 of the document called “Key Observations”, we have table 1. There are some shaded yellow boxes in that table. As an example, if you look at the British Columbia number, which is 0.04, this is the number of work stoppages per 10,000 employees for a particular year. In 2005 there were 0.04 work stoppages in British Columbia. This is of course a province that does not allow the use of replacement workers. So the number is pretty low, which is a good thing.
If you compare that number, however, with that of Quebec, you find that Quebec's number is more than six times the number for B.C. If you compare the B.C. number with that of Ontario, you find it is three times larger than British Columbia's number.
My conclusion in looking at these data is that I really cannot relate the anti-scab legislation to the number of work stoppages. There is simply no relationship between those two variables.
Table 2, which is on page 3, is a table about the average duration of work stoppages--how many days a work stoppage lasts. Again let me do the same thing. In this table, Mr. Chair, to avoid the cycles that are normal in any economic data, we have taken averages to get a more basic trend in the data.
Let's take the average for 1975 to 1977 as an example and look at British Columbia. The average duration of a work stoppage over that three-year period in British Columbia was 27 days. It was 37 days in Quebec--a bigger number than in British Columbia, and as you know, both have anti-scab legislation. Ontario's average was 28--before the legislation in both provinces--which was about the same as B.C. but lower than Quebec.
Let's go to the bottom of this table. For the period 2003 to 2005--for British Columbia and Quebec this was a post-legislation period--B.C. had 28.9 days, Ontario had 38.1, which of course is higher and Ontario doesn't have that legislation, but Quebec had 46.6. Looking at the average for those three years, if you asked me to conclude what the relationship was between those two variables, my conclusion would be none.
The second thing we can do in this table is go from the historical period pre-legislation to now and see what this legislation does. Looking at the Quebec numbers, the average duration of work stoppage went from 37 days in the three-year period before 1977 to 46.6, an increase of 10 days. The legislation didn't seem to have any effect in reducing the average duration of work stoppage. It went up.
The same is true for Ontario. It went up from 28 days pre-1977 to 38, about the same increase as in Quebec. In B.C., on the other hand, there was not much of an increase--from 27 to 29--but if you look at the average for B.C. in the middle of the page, which is again the pre-change issue since the B.C. legislation came in 1993, you will see that there was a drop from 44 to 29.
The simple message from these numbers again is that I really can't find a link between the average duration of work stoppage and anti-scab legislation.
I take you now to page 5, which is a third variable of interest to us. This is the number of person-days not worked. If we look at the bottom of the page, for B.C. the number is 59, which is the lowest number on the table. For Ontario, which doesn't have that legislation, the number is 81, which is higher than B.C.'s number. But the Quebec number is 132.
Again I can't establish a link between this type of legislation and the number of person-days not worked.
The most important variable, as shown on page 7, was in the wage gains of workers, based on whether or not a law of this type was available.
The federal wage gain in 2005 was 2.7%. We don't have this legislation. The British Columbia wage gain was 2.3%, lower than the federal wage gain. Quebec had a gain of 2.4%, again lower than the federal wage gain. But I'm not going to conclude that if you don't have this law workers get bigger benefits, because that certainly is not true. The Ontario number was 2.3% as well, which is the lowest number in the table for wage gain.
So I cannot draw a conclusion that this type of legislation can help workers achieve larger wage gains.
I have mentioned the four variables of wage adjustments, the number of work days lost, the average duration of strike, and the number of work stoppages. My data are quite credible, have been used by many analysts, and are of the same quality as Statistics Canada's data. If we use the averages over these periods, we cannot establish a link between the legislation and the variables we are looking at.
So that is the conclusion we draw from these data. Of course I can use these data to draw other conclusions, but I would argue that those are not reasonable conclusions based on the use of data. I can give you many examples, just looking at these tables, of how that can happen. Some people have tried to do that, but I would suggest that is really not very scientific.
That's all I have to say. We're here to answer your questions on these tables or other questions of fact and analysis that we can deal with, as I said, in order for the minister and the government of Parliament to come a decision on policy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, as I said, I'll deal with issues of fact. There are issues of policy in that question that I would not want to deal with.
Let me explain that in the Canada Labour Code the reference to essential services is essential services in a very narrow sense. The services defined in the code only relate to health and safety.
The reason there's such a narrow focus on essential services is that the essential services provisions of the code work hand in hand with the replacement workers provision. The two go together. Because businesses are allowed to use replacement workers, the code did not have to be very prescriptive on what essential services are, and it has suggested mechanisms in the code on how to deal with the essential services issue. The code quite explicitly states that management and unions should sit together and define what essential services are in their particular areas.
I'll give you an example. On the CN strike that is happening right now, effective February 10, the two parties jointly determined that the commuter rail service in Toronto and Montreal will not be shut down. The service is still running, and it's only the freight service that has been hit by the strike.
If the two parties, Mr. Chair, cannot agree on which services should continue, they would apply to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and the board would come to a decision on what it would consider to be essential. It is what both parties would be expected to follow.
To summarize my answer, since the two provisions in the code work hand in hand, the provisions for essential services are very limited. If, for the sake of argument, one of the provisions of the code were to change, then there would of course be a huge imbalance between the two.
For example, if is made into law, it would mean the essential services provision in the Canada Labour Code would not be sufficient. If it is not dealt with, then I would speculate that the Canada Industrial Relations Board would find it has to deal with a workload that is significantly more than is realistic at the present time. The board may not be able to handle that.
Again, I think the two things need to be looked at together.
:
It is an opinion based on what is meant by balance in the context of the code, and on whether or not that definition of balance would be disturbed.
The definition of balance was used in pulling the provisions of the code together, and the Sims report really describes it and discusses it in detail. To determine if there is balance, you must look at whether or not the law would create equal incentives for both parties to come to a reasonable solution.
Again, I can use the CN example. In the current strike, both parties face financial challenges. The workers, of course, face financial challenges because they lose income as long as they are on strike. According to a union spokesperson, CN is now running at 25% capacity, which of course means that CN management and business are also facing financial challenges. So there is the balance in the code to encourage both parties to come to a view on what a reasonable settlement would be. If you change that balance, then of course the incentives will change.
I'm not here to suggest whether or not that new balance is appropriate. All I'm suggesting is that the existing balance, in which there are reasonable incentives on both sides to come to a view as to what a reasonable settlement would be, would be disturbed, and then somebody would have to find what new balance one would need or whether one needed a new balance. As I said before, that is really a policy question.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for coming to enlighten us further on the bill before us.
I'm pleased to meet you, but I didn't think you were going to talk to us about the document that was produced on October 24, the day before the vote, which Minister Blackburn had distributed to all members only a few hours before the vote on second reading.
When I received that document, I was quite surprised because I had the impression that the statistics it contained were not correct. I've told this committee on a number of occasions: it's a surprise when you compare work stoppages in Quebec and Ontario. It's like comparing tomatoes and carrots: they're both good, but the comparison isn't fair and doesn't give an accurate idea of the situation.
You have to compare the number of person-days lost by workers governed by the Quebec Labour Code and those lost by workers governed by the Canada Labour Code. If there are figures that should be compared, it's those ones. When you compare Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, a number of other factors that are not taken into consideration influence the figures.
I'm thinking, among other things, of the number of unionized workers. It is a well-known fact that the percentage of unionized workers is much higher in Quebec than in Canada or in any other province. So you shouldn't compare workers who are governed by the Quebec Labour Code with those governed by the Canada Labour Code.
On its Web site, the Government of Quebec has posted some good tables on the subject, which are available and which I could distribute to you, if Mr. Chair gave me the permission. We have the figures on labour disputes in Quebec involving workers under provincial jurisdiction and those under federal jurisdiction between 1989 and 2004. You realize there are far fewer workers under federal jurisdiction — they represent eight percent or less of the total labour force — but that the number of person-days lost is generally, on average, much greater than eight percent in their case. For example, between 1989 and 2004, the average number of person-days lost by those workers represented 18.8 percent of the total number, whereas they represent less than eight percent of the total labour force. These are figures that talk, that are accurate and that are spread over a long period.
It is true that there are years in which the number of person-days lost is less than eight percent, but it is also true that, in some years, that number is much higher. I am thinking, among others, of 2002, when the percentage was 47.8 percent, and the last average reported, which is 18 percent. I will be extremely pleased to submit those figures to you.
Perhaps you haven't observed the direct impact of passage of the anti-strike breaking legislation in Quebec in 1977 on the number of work stoppages, but, when you look at the figures in Quebec, you see that, in 1976 and 1977, there were respectively 293 and 276 strikes. The last figure I have is 96 for 1995, and I see that you've come up with the figure of 76 for 2005.
That may not be the most interesting statistic, but it confirms that the anti-strike breaking legislation resulted in social peace in Quebec. Everyone says it: the unions and even the employers have been saying it for years. We moreover found no real criticism of the strike breaking legislation in any of the briefs by the Conseil du patronat du Québec.
Having said that, I'll allow you some time to comment on the figures I've given you, Mr. Sheikh.
Thank you to the officials for coming today. I'd like to pick up on a couple of points you're making.
You focused a lot on numbers, and you seem to be coming to a conclusion, or you're wanting us to believe a conclusion, that your numbers show that this bill banning the use of replacement workers hasn't had an impact. I think it's really important to note that numbers alone don't tell the story. You have to look at the labour relations climate in terms of what is happening at any particular time. I would draw your attention, and the attention of members of the committee, to your own tables that you presented today. I think it's very clear on page 5, in table 3, that in Quebec, when you look at the number of person-days not worked, you can see a very high figure--four million plus--in 1977, prior to the legislation coming into effect in Quebec, and then you can see a very sharp drop-off after that, going down to one million. Then there are some figures below that.
It seems to me that if you want to just argue numbers, you could use this table equally the other way around. Unfortunately you don't show the B.C. situation, because the B.C. legislation came into effect in 1993, so we actually can't do the comparison there.
The other thing I would add is that I think it's very clear that in Quebec there was a wave of work stoppages, particularly in 2005, because there were a lot of conflicts because of a major restructuring by the Quebec government that went on. So that produced a very different kind of labour relations climate, and I think you have to put that in the mix.
So I don't share your conclusion that this is just based on numbers alone. I think these numbers can be looked at in different ways, particularly in the table I've just pointed out. You can comment on that if you want.
The second point I'd like to raise and get you to respond to is that you seem to be saying that section 87.4 in the Canada Labour Code, which deals with maintenance of services, which we all understand to be the provision that deals with essential services, is very narrow. I think you said that in your comments. And it is correct that section 87.4 says “to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.
But let's be very clear. It's very similar in Quebec. And in B.C., the legislation says “safety or health” and I think they use the word “welfare” as well. Nevertheless, we are dealing with similar provisions. So I'm not aware that the narrowness of the scope of those pieces of legislation has in any way impeded parties from being able to declare what are essential services.
I would point out further that the CIRB itself, in a ruling dealing with the Montreal airport--its own ruling--raises the question of what is meant by the safety and health of the public, and the board itself is saying that in the board's view, the code gives it plenty of leeway by refraining from imposing any definitions whatsoever, and then it goes on beyond that. So even the board itself, in its own rulings, seems to have been quite satisfied that it has the scope to deal with the provision of essential services as defined in the code.
Finally, I would like your officials to walk us through section 87.4 of the Labour Code. We have heard so much conflicting testimony--that there are no provisions, that we can't deal with essential services, that it's not clear, that it's not fair--and yet I've read section 87.4, and it's very clear to me that the employer or the union or the minister can actually request the board to provide an intervention and define what those essential services are.
But rather than having it come from me, I would like your officials to walk us through how section 87.4 of the Labour Code works and who can do what in terms of defining what those essential services are.
:
Well, this is not an easy thing to do. As I'm sure you'd appreciate, collecting data internationally for countries whose legal systems are quite different from ours is not a small thing.
We've tried to make some progress on that front. We have come across information put together by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Labour Organization. We have been able to get hold of some data. Of course we don't have information for all of the approximately 162 countries.
Based on the information we have been able to get, we put countries into three categories: countries that ban the use of replacement workers; countries that allow the use of replacement workers in one form or another, as there are differences in degrees; and countries for which we don't really have any information.
If I can summarize the information that we have, as I said, it's incomplete.
In the first group, countries that ban the use of replacement workers, I can mention countries like Korea, Mexico, Chile, Cambodia, Botswana, Tanzania, and the Republic of Montenegro. Those are the seven countries we have found where the use of replacement workers is banned. As you can understand, they have disallowed that.
The countries where replacement workers are allowed in one form or another would be France, the U.K., Belgium, the U.S., Australia, Germany, Slovenia, Greece, Madagascar, and Namibia. It's not a very long list, but it is all we have been able to find.
I would put the remaining 140-odd countries on the list where we really cannot come to a determination on whether or not replacement workers are allowed. For most of the western countries, the answer is that replacement workers are allowed in one form or another.
I'd like to come back to this question of replacement workers and essential services. An impression is being left here that if you cannot use replacement workers, you cannot provide essential services. As I understand it, the reality is that, first of all, most employers faced with a strike don't use replacement workers. We already know that, by the minister's own admission. He himself has put that on the record. In fact, he uses it as an argument as to why we don't need the legislation. We're talking about a very small number of employers that do use replacement workers, and what the impact and consequences of doing that are.
This idea that you can't provide essential services if you can't use replacement workers is completely erroneous. In the Labour Code now, section 87.4 makes it very clear that “the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.” It then goes on to detail that there are mechanisms that either the employer, the union, or the minister can use to make an intervention to get that determination set down.
I'd like to ask Mr. Leduc if he could take us through section 87.4 and point out the steps that exist in the code now and that are used by the board to establish what essential services are. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can have replacement workers. Could you do that, please?
Subsection 87.4(1) provides the principle whereby employers, employees, and bargaining agents have a duty to essentially continue to provide services and production of goods to “prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”. The words “immediate and serious” are in there and have been interpreted by the board.
When notice to bargain has been given, the employer and the trade union must get together and basically come to an agreement on the level of services, what they are and what number of employees will provide them. If there is an agreement, then we continue.
When no agreement is entered into, one of the parties can go to the CIRB to ask for a determination to be made. The minister himself, even if there is an agreement, can look through the agreement and ask the board also to re-examine the question. Then the CIRB can examine the whole situation. It has a number of powers and can basically determine what those services are and the manner in which those services will be provided and imposed, always within the constraint or the definition of imminent and serious danger to the safety of the public. They have to stay within that bound. Once they have done those orders, basically they can review the orders afterwards if there is a reason.
Finally, there is a particular provision with respect to the maintenance of services. If it requires so many employees that it would make the strike or the lockout almost moot, there is a provision to force mediation in such cases.
:
I'll ask a question, and then Ms. Dhalla has something else.
The frustration here is that we're not getting any definition of essential services. In the last few weeks since I've been on this committee, we've been asked to wait until we get the technical witnesses and then we'll understand this better. We're not getting a definition, and it's of concern to me.
I want to put a bill in place banning replacement workers, but I'm concerned about it. I'm concerned this bill has loopholes that have the potential to have a severe impact. I don't think any labour union in the country wants to shut down an essential service.
What an essential service is depends on who you are. We've heard from the trucking industry that food in some northern communities is dependent upon trucking, and it is therefore an essential service. 911 is an essential service.
In the absence of having someone able to define for us what an essential service is and not being able to get that definition, I want to go back to the history of the CIRB. Assuming it's correct, section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code does not empower the CIRB, the Minster of Labour, or the government to order the suspension of a strike or a lockout pending the determination of an issue on the maintenance of activities that arise during a strike or lockout. In fact, the Canada Labour Code specifically states in subsection 87.5(3) that the strike is not suspended. If the strike is not suspended, there is the question of what an essential service is.
Can you tell me again, based on history, how long it takes to get a determination from the CIRB?
:
Thank you, Mr. Allison.
I would support Mr. Lake's motion. I think we've given this adequate study. Hearing the numerous comments, specifically in the last few weeks, highlights the trepidation that leaders in the Canadian economy have with the ramifications of such an implementation of this private member's bill.
We've seen the negative results it had in Ontario when it was utilized. We've seen the decision by the last two provincial governments not to go back in time and adopt a process that would cause hardships for blue-collar workers. Certainly I don't believe we should pick that approach federally.
I think the most responsible thing, in recognition of promoting labour peace and a strong economy, would be to adopt Mr. Lake's motion. Certainly we're not closing the door on further study. The very fact that Mr. Lake mentioned another motion about consultation shows that there's interest to keep studying this, because labour peace is important and we always have to be cautious of new trends and new techniques to make sure labour peace is always an objective for the Government of Canada.
By taking these two motions today, if the committee was to make that decision, we'd send a signal that, one, we're not going to harm our economy, but at the same time, we're always going to be diligent to make sure we continue to research the ideas that have been raised.
I would certainly support this and hope the committee would give Mr. Lake's motion due consideration. If there are small aspects of this that need to be changed, I would hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, because I think we've chosen an appropriate road to follow in what Mr. Lake has put forward.
:
Mr. Chair, I get the impression I'm in the National Improvisation League here. The situation is completely crazy. A bill has been referred to us for consideration. We have heard a host of witnesses, and as we are preparing to conduct the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, an amendment is submitted to us, a surprise motion that we're trying to negotiate like this.
I tell you that trying to negotiate with our colleagues is insulting and contemptuous. Mr. Chair, we can't treat matters as important as this lightly. We all due respect for my colleagues here present, I must say that this is intolerable.
We could very well have introduced a motion today and said that the evidence heard in the first part indicates to us that a better balance will be struck with this bill, and I would have found that insulting for our colleagues. The reverse is also true. You can't say today that Bill C-257 will result in an imbalance in view of the evidence we've heard, because that evidence has to be viewed in perspective, in light of the initial evidence.
We know that there was an imbalance in the evidence. That's been admitted here. By dint of circumstance, we accepted a motion introduced by the Conservatives to add witnesses to the list.
We know that we could also have issued a list to restore the balance. We could have called for the unions, since we heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, then all the list of chambers of commerce of the provinces. We could have done the same with the Canada Labour Congress. We heard it and we could have called for all its affiliate organizations. There would have been a lot of people!
I contend that we should take Bill C-257 in its present form, as it was referred to us by the House, examine it clause by clause and responsibly conduct the evaluation and analysis with which we are required to proceed. That means that we will also examine the matter of essential services.
Are we going to shirk a responsibility that is ours by assigning it to someone else? That would be irresponsible. Ultimately, we could draw certain conclusions, but once the clause-by-clause consideration is done. At the end, we might find ourselves with a clause that is really the subject of special concerns. Everyone could then say that we can't find our way and that we should assign the study to someone else, but we have to know what it is about. We can't assign the whole thing to someone else.
I'm going to oppose this motion. I'll also say that I'm going to oppose any practice of this kind, which consists in introducing a makeshift motion, taking everyone by surprise, and trying to negotiate it with an opposition party. Mr. Chair, this is intolerable.
:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about what I think was lacking in the whole debate.
We really only heard how the labour legislation works in two provinces. We didn't hear from provinces that never adopted this legislation. It was on the table in my province, which has an NDP government, and they absolutely refused this kind of legislation. Just because these two provinces have the statistics and data that makes us believe we should make this legislation, as federal regulators...I find that very difficult.
I think it's very important for us to understand what was said today. It is federally regulated because it is essential; it is essential to be federally regulated because it's critical. The word “essential” is very important, but he also said it's “critical” to our country.
In the prairie provinces, we would be devastated with legislation such as this that creates an imbalance.
I don't like where this debate went--almost that we're against labour. We are not. In fact, I believe there should be peaceful and good relationships with peers and bosses in corporations.
We are federal regulators. They're looking to us to make sure this economy doesn't stop. I know our prairie provinces would have a very difficult time. These provinces that are represented by unions have ports. We rely on those ports, and the labour, which put a lot of our goods through to other countries. We rely on good labour relations. We expect that between labour and their bosses.
Nobody has asked the consumers. Nobody has asked us, who rely on these services, what we call essential. I would be afraid that we would never have any input on what would be essential. Our livelihoods on the Prairies are very essential--very essential.
We heard from the mining industry. I think we haven't heard enough, even from the employees. What do the employees think of some of this? We've heard mainly from the union bosses. Perhaps some who were represented here on the last day of witnesses said that they felt they did represent the employees and that the legislation did not represent those people.
I think we're not looking at the bill in the right context. If we're going to actually think about this bill, we should ask other provinces why they didn't adopt this legislation.
We are going through strikes right now in our province. They have replacement workers. They've used another jurisdiction to have replacement workers.
I think this motion in fact says what should be said. All our witnesses have given different scenarios about how this country will have some difficulties if this legislation is adopted. It tilts the balance of power. I think there should be no more discussion about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to be voting against the motion--surprise, surprise--and the first point I want to make is this. I really believe the House, by a vote, sent us this bill in good faith. It was debated in the House. It had two hours of debate under private members’ business. It went to a vote at second reading, which is a vote in principle. The House sent it to this committee believing, as with all other bills and private members' business, that we would continue in good faith to deal with the bill, to hear witnesses, to eventually get to clause-by-clause, and to then make a decision about sending the bill back.
So to try to short-circuit that before we have done our work is very unfortunate, and I think really speaks to the real position being put forward here by the Conservatives--that is, they just want to kill this bill.
I don't for a minute believe this is a rationale for further consultation. There's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that if this motion were approved, and then the second motion were moved and approved on the basis that we need further consultation, it would probably end up being the longest consultation in history. I can tell you that there's no indication from the Conservative government that they actually want this legislation. This is simply a way to get this off the political agenda, to get it off the table, to get it off the committee...and to not have it go back to the House. Let's be realistic about that.
We've also heard arguments that because it's private members' business--the bill came from a member, from Monsieur Nadeau--it's somehow not quite legitimate; it hasn't gone through the right process, and doesn't have the credibility that other proposed legislation does. I'd like to dispute that too, because I think it gets to the very core of what we do in Parliament. The bills and motions we move as part of private members' business have equal standing to, and as much right to go through the process as, a government bill, or a Senate bill, or anything else for that matter. So I'd like to deal with that one as well, because it keeps on popping up.
The fact that it's a private member's bill doesn't mean that we give it any less attention or any less due consideration. In fact, I could even argue the contrary, that because it's a private member's bill I think we're spending an enormous amount of time scrutinizing the bill and looking at it from various points of view.
I just heard, from the parliamentary secretary, that we've heard mainly from union bosses. I'm like, what? Let's go back and check the record.
I think the split right now is about 80% to 20%, with 80% being employer representatives and 20% being union representatives.
:
The fact is that we determined what witnesses we would hear. We actually agreed, on this side of the table, that we would....
Yes, we've heard an imbalance, and there hasn't been equal representation, but we've certainly heard from a lot of employers. Nobody could argue that we haven't heard from all kinds of employers. National, regional, local, provincial, large operations, small operations--we've heard it all, as we should. And we agreed that we wouldn't submit any further labour witnesses because we felt that the arguments had been made. So the suggestion that somehow we've heard too much from the union side I find quite astounding.
In terms of further consultation, I really want to suggest to Mr. Savage that we should be very clear that this is a tactic being put forward by the Conservatives to basically kill this bill. I think it would be most unfortunate if any member decided to go along with that.
If there are issues around particular points--for example, I know that some members have concerns with regard to essential services--then I would hope that this is what we will be doing tomorrow and Thursday. We will go through this bill clause-by-clause. Members have the opportunity to submit amendments. If I'm not mistaken, tomorrow at noon we can submit amendments to the bill. So if clarifications are needed, then certainly the members have an opportunity to do that.
So my point is that I think we have to continue in good faith. And this is my final point. If there are members here who believe that this is a bad bill politically or ideologically or whatever, then they'll have an opportunity to vote against it. We will go back to the report stage in third reading in the House. If there are members who think it's not balanced and that they haven't achieved what they want to achieve at committee, then they will have an opportunity to vote for this in the House.
So I feel that it's very important that we do our work, that we do as much as we can to deal with this bill, and that we make our determination. Then let the House decide. That's the point of sending it back. That's the point of its being here, to go through those details and send back a bill, with amendments or without amendments. Then there will be a further two hours of debate in the House. Then all members of the House will decide, on its merit, whether or not they believe in this bill--beyond the principle, in terms of the substance--and whether they think it's balanced. And if they don't, they can vote against it.
So what I want to say is that this is absolutely not the time to do this. We should continue our work. We're close now to concluding the committee process. So let's uphold that process and do our work. And let's just continue with the steps. And other decisions will be made and people can make a decision about what they want to do at that point.