HRPD Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 24, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): I would like to call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is our first public hearing on Bill C-19. It's my pleasure to introduce our first presenter, Mr. Gerald Chipeur, who is here on behalf of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Chipeur, the floor is yours.

Mr. Gerald Chipeur (Calgary Chamber of Commerce, Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, Alberta Chamber of Commerce): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am here on behalf of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce. Each of these organizations has reviewed the contents of Bill C-19 and has determined that three changes to the Canada Labour Code that are included in Bill C-19 jeopardize the basic principles of a free and democratic society. Those principles are the right to privacy, the right to democracy and economic freedom.

Each of these bodies has passed a specific resolution and those resolutions will be provided separately to this committee. This afternoon I would like to summarize for you the concerns of the three chambers.

But before I do that, it's important for this committee to understand that Bill C-19, this document that you all have, does not reflect the consensus of employers and employees in Canada. This book, Seeking a Balance, was the genesis for Bill C-19, but this book and Bill C-19 are not the same. The most striking evidence that there is not a consensus on Bill C-19 is the Canadian Labour Congress presentation to the committee of the House on Bill C-66, where they said there is no consensus on the issue of replacement workers, on the issue of economic freedom, and then they proceeded to criticize Bill C-19 for not going far enough to protect replacement workers.

It's also important for this committee to understand that even this document here was the product of a rushed and limited consultation process. We practise law in Alberta, and we practise labour law. We received notice on a Tuesday that hearings were going to take place Thursday in Vancouver, and could we make it? Busy individuals can't rearrange their schedules to be in a different city on 48 hours' notice. So this is the result of limited consultation and a rushed consultation. There hasn't been the appropriate consultation necessary to amend a piece of legislation that hasn't seen major amendment for 25 years. If you're going to do that kind of major overhaul, more consultation is required.

Having said that, it is not our purpose to review for you all of the areas of Bill C-19 upon which there is consensus. That does not need repeating. We are here to assist this committee and the government to improve the bill so that it accurately reflects the will of Parliament and the views of Canadians. The current version of Bill C-19 does not reflect the consensus that was achieved three years ago, and it does not reflect the views of the vast majority of Canadians.

This committee should also understand that there is good reason to change Bill C-19. The first good reason is that three years have elapsed and a general election has occurred since Seeking a Balance was published in 1995.

This House standing committee was not consulted at the drafting stage. You weren't consulted until second reading. There was no initial consultation. You didn't have the opportunity to have input into Bill C-19 at the drafting stage.

Third, the standing Senate committee that reviewed the predecessor bill, Bill C-66, has recommended changes in three areas. Those concerns were included in a report tabled in the Senate on April 25, 1997, and we've provided copies of that report to you.

• 1540

Fourth, the minister did attempt to address the concerns set out by the Senate committee, but it's our submission that the attempts did not go far enough. In fact, by leaving the discretion with the new Canada Industrial Relations Board, this committee and Parliament have no control over how those clauses will be interpreted, and therefore you have exactly the same problem with this bill that had been a problem with Bill C-66 when it was before the Senate.

As I've already indicated, the fifth reason for reason is that there is no consensus in the three areas.

Finally, there would likely be fairly widespread support throughout Canada, particularly in the business community, if the three major areas of concern identified by the Senate were properly addressed by this committee and amendments recommended to the minister.

What, then, are the three areas? First is privacy. On page 1285 of their report the Senate committee said that clause 50 was a problem. They said all reasonable steps should be taken to make affected employees aware of applications, and provide them with an opportunity to raise concerns as to their privacy and safety. At the very least, the board should treat very seriously evidence of a direct request made by an employee that certain information not be provided.

Your committee also believes the Canada Industrial Relations Board must comply with the Privacy Act. The only way to ensure that privacy is protected is to delete clause 50 from Bill C-19. The minister attempted to improve the draft in clause 50, but the fact remains that the board currently has the discretion to deliver the name and address of an employee to a union that has no interest in that employee or the company, has not been chosen by either side to have a relationship with that employee—that employee's name and address can, against their will, be delivered to the trade union.

The solution is easy. Either delete clause 50 or insert into it a requirement that if an employee objects to the disclosure of their name and address, it will not be disclosed.

The purpose of clause 50 was simply to give each trade union a fair opportunity to communicate with an employee. What is wrong with a provision that says the employer or board will deliver all union information, documentation, brochures to that employee without disclosing to the union the name and address of that employee, and if the employee wishes to contact the union and develop a relationship, that can happen? There is no need to have that employee's privacy invaded. You wouldn't like it.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): You have about two minutes left and I see that you're not very far along, so could you move a little more quickly?

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: Okay.

Would you like it if Parliament started distributing your home addresses and private numbers to any individual or organization that wanted to do business with you or convince you to change your mind with respect to an issue?

I hope my partner, Tom Wakeling, will ultimately have an opportuntiy to address the committee, so considering the time limit we currently have, I will not address the democracy issue.

I would like to go directly to the issue of economic freedom. The question of economic freedom is a question of replacement workers. It's easy to come to the politically correct decision that it would be nice if every employee had a monopoly on their job, and that no one else could do their job in the event they chose not to do the job themselves.

But businesses must face the Competition Act, which says businesses may not collude or act monopolistically to guarantee themselves a business opportunity to the exclusion of all others. The same rules should apply to employees. If employees do not wish to provide their services, there is no reason in policy for that job to be guaranteed to the individual during a period that individual chooses not to work.

• 1545

Probably the most important reason not to proceed with the replacement worker clause, subclause 42(2), is that it does not represent the result of a consensus developed between labour and management. If Bill C-19 does seek a balance, and if it is intended to reflect the consensus in the community, clearly this clause does not reflect that consensus.

It's also important to remember this: there really is no compromise possible between the two sides, and that is, do you allow replacement workers or not? If you agree with the Senate committee and the minister in his testimony this morning that replacement workers per se are not a bad thing, then the only question becomes whether, in a particular case where replacement workers have been used, they have been used in a way that is an unfair labour practice.

You heard this morning that the only way you can determine that is by going to section 94 and determining whether there is an unfair labour practice. If there is an unfair labour practice under section 94, then you don't need to address the issue of replacement workers. The board has the power of the fine, and it has the ability to enjoin and order employers to stop certain unfair labour practices. You don't need to give the board the power to impose a ban on replacement workers to address an evil that this committee or the minister might see in a particular situation.

More importantly, this committee and Parliament will not be delegating to the board itself a policy-making function in the context of replacement workers. It's our position that this committee and Parliament must take a position—either replacement workers are legitimate or they're not. If they're legitimate, then there is ample protection in the code against unfair labour practices. If it's illegitimate, then say so and don't hide behind a labour board that you know will disregard this legislation and impose bans on replacement workers without the kind of evidence this committee believes is necessary to establish that an unfair labour practice has occurred.

Why do I say that we know labour boards will act in this way? I've given you a recent example from British Columbia where a labour board said we do not think a particular employer acted in a proper way. It was Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart told its employees that they didn't think the employees would benefit from being represented by a trade union. They also did not tell the employees about a situation that had occurred in Windsor, Ontario. Based on that communication and lack of communication, the labour board came to the conclusion that they thought there was a possibility of strong support—at least 45%—for the labour union within that community. When the vote actually took place a few days later, it turned out that less than 20% of those employees supported the trade union.

I point out that case merely to emphasize the importance of this committee not giving the board discretion in these three areas, because if they do, they cannot count on them to implement your policies and your views when they are faced with these issues.

In conclusion, it is our submission that the best approach this committee can take to Bill C-19 at this time, in order to achieve a balance and implement the consensus that has been achieved, is to delete subclause 42(2) and clauses 46 and 50, or modify clause 50 to give employees the right to object to their names and addresses being communicated to a trade union against their consent.

• 1550

Those are our submissions. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today.

The Chairman (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Chipeur. I have one question. You mentioned Mr. Wakeling as you entered. Did you bring a submission on behalf of Mr. Wakeling?

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: I did. I have given it to the clerk; it is there. We understand that time constraints may prove difficult for him, but if he's not able to appear here, at least you have his written submissions. They go into great detail on the issue of the democratic rights of employees to self-determination with respect to the workplace.

The Chairman: All right, thank you. I just wanted to ensure that that had been circulated, because it looks like Mr. Wakeling will be unable to make a presentation.

Okay. We're now open for questions. We are somewhat constrained. Let me start with about a—

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): I'll defer to Rob for the first question.

The Chairman: You may defer for all of them. This is only a half-hour session, sir.

Rob, you start. But we'll try to keep it to about four minutes, and I'll see if I can save you a bit of time, Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): All right.

You have mentioned, for example, some of the problems with the move from going from a secret ballot with a 50% plus one provision, and this whole idea of moving towards these union cards. But there's one thing I don't think has been raised, and I'd like you to address it because you have some background in labour law. My feeling is that this opens up the opportunity for union rating, and I don't think anybody wants that. There's the whole question of democracy and the whole question of majority votes and all the rest of this, and secret ballots, and all these other important things.

One of the things that was touched on earlier this morning was that the potential for a union rating from multiple unions to try to go in and sign up union cards at a site is something that, if you have a 50% plus one vote, just doesn't happen.

But in this circumstance if you're going to open it up to union cards, all of a sudden you have the potential for union raids and for unions competing with each other to try to outsign each other's cards. And as a result, we've had situations before where the Canada Labour Relations Board has ruled that indeed this is the problem that results, and that's one of the reasons they themselves recommended to go with the majority vote with a secret ballot vote.

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: Virtually every jurisdiction in North America goes with a secret ballot vote. It would be a departure from accepted practice. I'm sure that if any of you were to run in your own constituencies and try to win your seat by getting people to sign up cards, all of you would be elected and so would all of the people running against you. Everyone would get elected. It's important to remember that this cuts across all of the issues addressed in my written submission. I wasn't able to get into great detail there, but there are two problems that you've highlighted.

Number one, with respect to the initial certification process, you're right, absolute chaos would occur if in fact you had everybody coming up with enough cards to order a vote. Are we then going to have three or more ballots? Are we going to have three or more names on the ballot? That's not contemplated in the legislation. We would be forcing the board to deal with a situation that is not contemplated in the legislation.

Number two, once one union is certified, and you then have another union that wants to come in and disrupt the relationship between that trade union and the employer and that trade union and the employees, this makes it so much easier for that disruption to take place. If the trade union knows it has to win 50% plus one in a secret ballot vote, they're not going to attempt that unless they can win it, because the fact is they will not want to show themselves to be weak.

On the other hand, if they can go in and actually force a vote on a whim, on a chance, then why not disrupt the organization that's currently in place? They have nothing to lose. I would agree that those are major problems.

We're here on behalf of the chamber, and we really don't have any official position on that issue, but that's my response to the problem you have addressed.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. So one, we have the problem with union rating. Secondly, you've touched on as well the whole idea of this bringing up disturbances in the workplace. Is there is any advantage to creating some sort of new form of Canadian labour jurisprudence here? We have the example where you have secret ballot votes, and you have 50% plus one.

• 1555

This touches on a number of other aspects, including the whole idea of replacement workers. What are the advantages here? We have other jurisdictions that have a total ban, for example. What's the advantage of creating some sort of new labour jurisprudence? Why would we want to move in that direction?

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: Well, I can tell you this: we certainly don't support changes from the status quo in any of the three areas we've identified. That's the first thing.

Second, the current system is working. I think the principle that “if it's not broken, don't fix it” applies here.

We also can look at other jurisdictions where they've tried to bring in bans on replacement workers. In fact they've tried to bring in certification of trade unions against a majority vote, against a trade union certification drive. In every jurisdiction where this has occurred—and there are really only two, Quebec and British Columbia—the impact on the business community and the economy has been dramatic. You'll probably hear from others who will testify on that impact.

There is no doubt in our minds that there will be a significant detriment for Canada as the sole participant in NAFTA, the only country that will have a ban on replacement workers in its legislation. That will not only impact small and medium-sized businesses, which may be bankrupted by a trade union that does not recognize the need for compromise, but it will also inhibit businesses from locating in a jurisdiction where those kinds of rules are in place.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chipeur.

I will now move on to Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): If I understand the point of view of the Chambers of Commerce of Calgary and Alberta, they are opposed to the legislation prohibiting replacement workers. Are you aware of the imbalance that this creates in the power relationship between employer and employee? The organized worker would be truly devoid of power and the negotiating power would be lost. That's why Quebec and other jurisdictions have prohibited the use of replacement workers to ensure that both parties are on a level playing field during a strike and to facilitate a fast resolution of the conflict.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: If you consider that the primary purpose of having a business, or to be in business, is to create jobs for employees and money for employers, then maybe that makes sense. But if you consider that the primary reason for business is to serve the public and consumers, then you're going to want to ensure that the public and consumers are served, notwithstanding the fact that employers and employees may have a disagreement with respect to a certain issue.

The balance is properly struck without a ban on replacement workers. If employees have skills and experience working for a particular business, they're going to hurt if they don't have access to those individuals, and those individuals withhold their services. That's the proper balance.

If you turn it around the other way, and say that when there is a strike businesses must shut down, the big guys don't care. They'll just move production, as we saw with Maple Leaf in Edmonton.

• 1600

What will happen, though, is that the small employer, the medium-sized employer.... Remember, this is going to apply across the Northwest Territories, and it's going to apply to any small trucking concern that goes across the boundaries of provinces. In that kind of situation, if the trade union does not exercise discretion, then not only will that employer, that business, not serve the public, but it will also go bankrupt. The economic opportunity and benefit of that organization, that business, will not only be lost to the employer, but it will be a loss to the employees themselves and to the community.

We think there would be a great imbalance if subclause 42(2) remained in Bill C-19.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin, would you have a question?

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Yes, it just happens that I do. I understand that given the format of these events it's not our job to argue with the presenters, so I'm not going to do that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I have no problem with that.

Mr. Pat Martin: We just don't have the time. Frankly, I would love to, too.

I do have an item for clarification, though. Earlier in your presentation you said that if they pass Bill C-19 in its current format, MPs would lose the opportunity to have any input on how the labour board would interpret certain clauses. Now, isn't that just as it should be? The labour board would stand alone as a quasi-judicial organization without interference by government or politicians.

So my question is did you actually mean that, or did I misunderstand you?

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: What I meant to say, and I think what I did say, was that the policy question has been left to the board on both subclause 42(2) and clause 46. In both those cases, and to a great extent in the case of clause 50, instead of Parliament saying we are for or against replacement workers, we are either for or against privacy for employees, or we are either for or against democracy....

Those are policy questions. Those are not questions of judgment. Those are not questions of legal application and interpretation. Instead, those important policy questions have been left to the board through the use of ambiguous language that specifically gives the board the discretion to do it or not. That is not on the basis of a set of legal principles they must follow, but instead in the area of privacy, it's just whatever they think is best. They have complete discretion as to whether or not privacy interests are infringed.

On subclause 42(2), on the question of whether or not there is an unfair use of replacement workers, well, we have the trade unions saying that every time they're used, it's an unfair labour practice. We have the employers saying that it's never an unfair labour practice. There's nothing in the middle. So if they choose one or the other, that's a policy decision, not a legal decision.

Mr. Pat Martin: Except that in this case it will be up to the board to make that ruling.

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: That's right. So you're delegating a policy decision to the board.

Mr. Pat Martin: Just as the courts are charged with the responsibility of making the determinations, so are labour boards charged with that responsibility when it's not—

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: Well, my argument would be the same if you were giving the courts the power to make that decision. I would suggest that Parliament would be delegating a policy question to the courts. That is, are replacement workers good public policy or bad public policy?

I'm suggesting that Parliament should make that decision. This committee should—

Mr. Pat Martin: Could I just ask one more question before I run out of time?

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: —not the courts or the board.

The Chairman: Give him a chance to answer the question, please.

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: That's fine—

The Chairman: I rather like the thought that Parliament would become a court, and we could take over all those decisions.

Pat, would you go ahead and ask another question.

Mr. Pat Martin: The second issue is in the area of democracy. Your argument is that without a sealed ballot vote in the case of any application to certify that democracy is being served....

In the case where a union has a card signed from, say, 60%, 65%, or 70%, wouldn't it be a breach of democracy to ask them then to have a vote ordered? Then six weeks or a month goes by, at which time there is possibly room for interference from the employer—I'm not saying that would happen, but there is a possibility of that—and then ask them to vote again. You're really asking them to vote twice for the same issue in a double jeopardy situation.

• 1605

If all cards have to be worded very clearly, so that by signing this card I'm stating that I wish this certain union to represent me in all matters pertaining to wages, terms of conditions of my workplace, etc., it's a pretty clear statement that I want this union to represent me.

By asking them to vote again in a mandatory vote.... Again, I'm not trying to argue with you, but I'm asking you, would it not be less democratic to force them to vote twice? Well, I guess the question would be, how many times are you going to make them vote until you get the answer you want?

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: Well, I don't think section 3 of the charter, which describes a vote, would contemplate a card system as anywhere near what the law means when a vote takes place. I think it's been at least 200 years since voting took place that way. So I would not even consider the card system a vote. I would consider it an expression of support for a particular organization, but only an expression of support, and not a true decision by the employee with respect to the issue.

If you were in fact to hold a vote, let's say within days after the cards were filed, you could avoid any of those problems. In fact, you can see from the examples we've filed that a board can act very quickly to address the concern of interference.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chipeur.

Mr. Dubé, do you have any questions?

Mr. Jean Dubé ((Madawaska-Restigouche, PC): I just got here.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mahoney, would you ask one very brief question.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Is it safe to say that your concern is more with the actual implementation of the labour board and your distrust of that process than it is with the balance in the legislation?

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: I would say this: we cannot imagine a situation where it would be appropriate to penalize employees for the unfair labour practices of the employer. In other words, let the punishment fit the crime. If the employer has acted improperly, punish the employer; don't take away the democratic rights of employees.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That isn't what I asked.

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: Well, my answer directly on that is no, there is no situation where the labour board should have the discretion to order certification without a secret ballot vote. That's the first point. There is also no situation where an unfair labour practice hasn't occurred independently where replacement workers should be banned.

So we're not disagreeing with the question of whether the board should have the discretion, or whether they would apply it improperly. We're saying that they should not have that discretion in the first place, because as a matter of public policy it would be improper for them ever to ban replacement workers or to certify a trade union against a majority vote the other way.

That's clearly our position. We do not think there is a possibility that they could exercise their discretion properly.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chipeur. Now I'm going to allow Mr. Johnston one very tightly scripted question.

Mr. Dale Johnston: As always, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chipeur, in the report on the west coast ports, there was a recommendation for a dispute settlement mechanism. In my opinion, that would take the place of having to have anti-replacement-worker legislation or having one group named as essential services. Do you care to comment on that?

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: You're referring to the final offer...?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Or something like that. It doesn't necessarily have to be exactly that.

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: The chamber has not taken a position on that issue in the documents you're going to receive, but I can say that business in Canada would welcome the opportunity to resolve disputes in the labour area without strikes or lockouts. Canada is not well served by a collective bargaining system based upon the use of economic coercion either way.

So if there was a solution that could resolve labour disputes without strikes and lockouts, trade unions would benefit, businesses would benefit, and the Canadian public would benefit. If you can't do it in Bill C-19, I would strongly urge this committee or the minister to put in place a commission or a board or some method by which that solution could be thoroughly canvassed and a recommendation brought back to Parliament.

• 1610

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chipeur, for coming all this way, and thank you for the time you spent with us.

Mr. Gerry Chipeur: It's my pleasure. Thank you very much to the committee.

The Chairman: Next, I believe, is some young guy...Hargrove.

There is a brief being circulated right now.

Mr. Hargrove, I realize you're inexperienced at these presentations. We'll give you a few minutes to make some opening remarks, and then I suspect there may be a question or two.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove (National President, National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada): First, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to appear today. They say in life you never get a second shot at these things, and this is one of those opportunities where we have a second shot, as does the committee, to tighten up the proposed legislation in some of the areas that we found to be lacking last time around.

With me today is my assistant, Peggy Nash, who is responsible for a lot of our union membership in the federal jurisdiction; and Frank Luce, from our legal department, who is the drafter of the brief and who is much more articulate on the bill itself than I am. But let me make a couple of comments.

First, I would like to apologize to the committee and the chair for not having the brief translated. Most of the material produced by our union is translated unless there is the kind of time pressure we have here. We got the notice of the hearing just a few days ago, and we just finished the brief yesterday. It will be translated and sent to the honourable members who would like to have it in French, so I want to apologize and beg their indulgence for that.

I'd like to compliment, again, the government on this important initiative, for bringing back the labour bill that discouraged a lot of us when it died on the Order Paper when the election was called. For me personally, our involvement in the rail bargaining was coming up, and we were hoping that the bill would have been passed before an election call, which would have expedited, I believe, the process in rail, and that didn't happen.

Now it's back here, and we are generally supportive of the government's efforts here. We do want to recognize that this is an important recognition, a recognition of a couple things. One is the changing nature of the economy and the fact that government has an obligation to respond to the changing nature of the economy—respecting that workers have to have protection and that, as the economy shifts, those protections have to shift accordingly, but just as importantly, recognizing there's an increasing imbalance of power in our economy today.

As we go through international trade agreements, as we open up the borders for new investment and new opportunities for business, it puts enormous pressure on working people and it gives enormous power to the corporate international capital or the corporate world. That's one thing on which I could agree with the former speaker.

The Maple Leaf Foods of the world will survive. Whether they survive by closing their plants in Edmonton or forcing 40% pay cuts on their workers in Burlington, they will find a way to survive. The question and I think the obligation of Parliament is to ensure that it's not at the expense of the working people of the nation.

So I want to recognize that it's important that the Liberal government has recognized the rights of workers to make progress on behalf of themselves and their families on labour issues. The economy is changing. Globalization has brought a whole host of new problems to working people. The ability of employers to ask people to do work in the homes requires a response, and I'm pleased to see that there is at least an initial step here in recognizing the that working people have to have access to unions, and the bill does recognize that.

• 1615

The anti-scab portion of the bill, as we said last year when we presented to the committee, we think should be tighter, but this is a first step and it is an important message to other jurisdictions in the country that there has to be recognition of the rights of workers. If we end up in those very few cases—and I want to emphasize those very few cases—where there are disputes that can't be settled through collective bargaining, that can't be settled around a table with people talking through the issues, when we have strikes or lockouts.... There is a very small number in the federal jurisdiction as well as the provincial jurisdictions across the country, and there's a much smaller, even minute, number of those where employers resort to hiring scabs to take the place of the workers who are exercising their legal rights.

Each time that happens it brings scorn on the legislature because of our lack of ability to come to grips with it. It brings scorn on the parties that are involved in the bargaining when each night the news is centred around people fighting, someone crossing a picket line and someone else trying to keep them out to protect their jobs. I liken it to—and in saying this I wish my colleague from Calgary had hung around—somebody intruding into your home.

Remember your job is what allows you to have a home, to start with; it's what allows you to feed, clothe and educate your family, and when someone moves on that you're going to respond. It's not unlike someone you don't know coming into your home and standing there with a gun. Most people would respond, even though it's pretty dumb to respond; there's this natural instinct to protect what is yours and to protect your family. And I would invite the honourable members, if you don't believe how quick you'd respond, just reach over and grab the wallet of the person sitting next to you and see how quickly you get a response.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: I don't have to remind you that every time Bill Clinton tried this he got into a lot of trouble.

So it is an important issue and it's one for which Parliament, as opposed to defending this small number of employers who have no respect for their workforce, I believe has an obligation to say that if there's a legal dispute that takes place then everyone has to suffer. The workers suffer because they lose their paycheques; they lose the ability to pay their bills, and feed and clothe and educate their children. All the things that are normal to people are lost. The employer in return must also suffer the consequences of the system breaking down, and this forces people to get around the table and it leads to the resolve.

Again, I say as strongly as I can and as sincerely as I can to the committee, we've had, since Mike Harris was elected and destroyed the labour legislation that was brought in by former governments, one incident of an employer scabbing in our union that led to a hell of a fight on the picket line.

At one time we had 600 police in the city of Toronto surrounding a group of workers who were on the picket line trying to defend their jobs. Millions of dollars in policing was spent over an eight- or nine-month period. And you have to ask yourself, does that make sense? Is that how we see a sane society operating, the people standing on a picket line fighting because they want the right to work? To me it makes much more sense to find a system that forces people to get around the table and find solutions to problems, and again I want to emphasize that this bill is a step in the right direction. It doesn't solve all the problems but it is a step in the right direction.

• 1620

Having said that, I do want to raise a real concern I have with the federal government and the Parliament, which is represented here by, I believe, all of the parties. This is the lack of respect generally for the right to strike in the federal jurisdiction.

I go back three years ago—and the honourable member Robert Nault will understand this; he comes from the railway sector of the economy—we struck CP and we were only out a few days. Some of the other unions struck CN, and within a matters of hours we had the legislature meeting and bringing in emergency legislation to take away our right to strike and put us back to work.

We've had the grain handlers who have been ordered back to work. We've had the dock workers who have been ordered back to work. We had the postal workers; after very few days of exercising their democratic right, we had that taken away.

Then we had the spectacle of the Canadian Airlines dispute where we were fighting to defend free collective bargaining and our collective agreement, which we had bargained under the laws of the country. We had gone to our membership and ratified it under the laws of the country and it didn't expire until this year. Yet we were forced by the government...the Minister of Labour, Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, introduced an order under some section of the Canada Labour Code that had never been used—I think it was section 107—that said that somehow we could be ordered to take a vote on a restructuring agreement with Canadian Airlines in spite of the fact that we had a legal collective agreement in place.

Our members were being forced to vote on a wage cut that the company was proposing after we had already opened our collective agreement and three consecutive times between 1992 and 1996 had bargained and given back wages, benefits and working conditions to try to keep the company alive. The workers and their union finally decided, in our parliament, that it made no sense to move ahead.

So I want to raise seriously this question under the federal code and the federal Parliament of the right to strike. Strikes by their nature are going to inconvenience someone. Democratic rights, any citizen, any group of citizens; corporations when they close a facility, when they pollute the air.... There is a host of examples I could give you. There are all kinds of rights, with one group exercising their rights that impact negatively on the rights of others. But surely the test of a democracy is to be able to withstand some of this negativity that's brought on by one group exercising its rights and ensure that you don't take away....

I listened to the previous presenter. He was suggesting to just eliminate the right to strike, period. That's wonderful for employers but it doesn't do much for working people and their right to press their proposals to improve their standard of living.

I don't want to spend a lot of time on that, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to raise what is a serious concern in the perception of people who work in the federal jurisdiction, that the right to strike is not really being supported by this government.

I don't want to spend my time responding to the former presenter, but I do want to say in response to this argument that somehow replacement workers will encourage business investment to come in, that the tragedy of the Mike Harris, Tory-Reform Party, attack on workers' rights in Ontario is that there was no debate, no discussion.

No one looked at the fact that from the time Bill 40 was introduced in the legislature in the province of Ontario, despite all the hype by the business community that it was going to drive investment out of Ontario, all of that, if you'd simply looked at the numbers it would show we went through a period of investment growth that was unprecedented. We went through a period in which exports increased from the time Bill 40 was introduced and passed in the Legislature of Ontario. Export growth was incredibly significant. Job creation and manufacturing increased where you'd normally have the problem of replacement workers. Most of all, the corporate profits increased incredibly.

There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Bill 40 of the NDP had any negative impact on the economy of the province of Ontario. But it didn't matter to Mike Harris. They got elected in June, and without any debate, dialogue or input, without any justification, any public hearings, Bill 40 became law on October 31, 1995.

So this argument is that somehow the ability to hire replacement workers is something that attracts investment or drives it away. I think I follow pretty closely what happens in the business community and what is considered when they make investment decisions. Each time labour legislation is way down the list in terms of what business considers when they're moving into a jurisdiction. They first talk about a skilled workforce, infrastructure, and the cost of providing energy to the workplaces.

• 1625

Suffice it to say that away down the list is the question of what the labour legislation.... Most companies take the position that they'll go into the jurisdiction and abide by the laws. Their position is that government makes the laws and they'll abide by them. Then you have the associations and the legal firms that make a lot of money out of confrontation and conflict, by trying to impose their ideas on business.

I will end by saying, Mr. Chairman, that if you look at our brief, you will see it says that this bill enjoyed the support of the employers' association as well as the labour movement. That is significant when you take into account what people such as the former presenter said. The business community out here understood exactly what this meant and were supportive.

Thank you very much for listening to our presentation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hargrove. I believe your final point was to kill the lawyers. I think you would find a lot of support for that around this table.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: You might be able to get away with it. I can't.

The Chairman: I'll start this time with Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: In his submission, Mr. Hargrove alluded to an amendment which, at first glance, seems trivial or almost insignificant. But in carefully comparing the text of Bill C-66 and that of Bill C-19 concerning replacement workers, one realizes that the words “for the demonstrated purpose” were added to the English version and the words “dans le but établi” to the French version.

The proposed paragraph 94(2.1) reads as follows:

(2.1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employee shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit...

Do you know to which paragraph I am referring?

[English]

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: I have it in front of me. I believe it—

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: It says “rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives”.

[Translation]

Why do you think the government is adding these words?

[English]

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: Well, I know why they are adding them. It was at the insistence at FETCO. There was a bit of a rebellion within the employers' association, and the government in its judgment added them in response to it. We objected to it, as we do here, because we think it again complicates what was already a complicated piece of legislation in this area. It wasn't clear. It is going to open it up to all kinds of legal arguments. We thought it should be stronger and clearer, but this further complicated it.

It certainly doesn't work to make it easier for workers. It puts an extra onus on workers and their unions to show, as this reads, that rather than a pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, there is some other reason an employer would want to hire scabs.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Is it fair to say that in adding these words, the government wants to make it more difficult for the union to prove that the employer is acting in a particular fashion?

[English]

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: No, this will be of help to the employer. There is no question. It puts a tougher onus on unions, as you pointed out, Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Are you satisfied with the provision dealing with the supposedly representative character of the Canada Labour Relations Board? Are you sure that your union will be well represented knowing that the Minister will be consulting the management and labour organizations that he sees fit to consult?

[English]

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: We make the point that we think there have to be sides persons and they have to be representative of the make-up of the country in gender and geography. All of those points we make in our brief. It remains to be seen whether it will happen under this legislation. We won't know until the government moves on it.

• 1630

The Canada Labour Relations Board had some problems, and has had historically. We're open to change, but it has to respect that practitioners play an important role in advising the chairperson on the issues. There's no one with more expertise or ability to move the system along than people from both sides of the table who deal in this world every day of their lives.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Martin, would you like to lay a whippin' on him now?

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay, I'll try to be easy on him.

Thanks for your presentation, Buzz. It was great. A couple of points come to mind.

As a representative of a union that has a reputation for organizing and arguably one of the best commitments to organizing in the country, can you comment on one of the key points that has come up in opposition to the bill. That is the clause dealing with automatic certification being granted in a situation in which it can be demonstrated that there were unfair labour practices or interference or coercion by the employer such that you couldn't determine the true wishes of the employees because they feared reprisals. Do you have any personal examples of that, or can you speak to the importance of that clause in the bill?

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: To my recollection, only once did we use the act under provincial jurisdiction. It involved a magnet plant in the city of Scarborough back in 1978. The supervision workers were signing up cards of their fellow members. The supervisor caught them and actually ordered them to give him the cards. He burned the cards outside the building, but there were a couple of witnesses whom he didn't see. When we went to the board and the witnesses testified to what happened, the board gave automatic certification to us.

I think in those cases, such as the recent Wal-Mart case in Windsor with the steelworkers, there has to be an onus on the employer to stay away from interfering with people's individual rights.

I don't think I have to remind the committee members of this, but I will say it for the record. I'll start out by saying there's an incredible imbalance of power in our society today, in the economy today. Multinational corporations have this power to close down their operations, to move their operations. We saw the most crass example of that with Maple Leaf Foods Inc. in Edmonton, Alberta, and Burlington, Ontario.

If you take it through—and we used this argument in our bargaining with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler in 1996—the employers own the property. They buy the property and make the sole decision on where they want to go. They build a plant based on what they think the dynamics of the business are. They bring in the equipment and the technology that are going to be used in the workplace. They do the hiring. They decide which community people they are going to bring into the workplace. They decide what they're going to produce, how much they're going to produce, when they're going to produce, and what the hours of work are going to be. They decide how they're going to market, and how many they're going to market. All of these things are decided.

Employers have enormous power, but they also, within the workplace, have the ability to adjust workers' hours. If they're unhappy with the worker, if they catch him trying to organize a union, they have the power to put him on a dirty job versus a clean job, a heavy job instead of a light job. There is such enormous power over workers that there has to be an even tougher test for employers in this area, even tougher than what this legislation says.

I have no quarrel with the legislation. It's a form of protection, but it should be even tougher in dealing with the employers who violate what is a very limited democratic right of workers. Workers almost give up all the democratic rights they enjoy in the community and in their homes when they walk into the workplace. That has to be respected by the legislators.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin, you may have one more small, quick question.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'll have to pick one, then.

One of the comments from the business community is that they would like to see all applications for certification backed up by a mandatory vote. In other words, even if 60% of the cards were signed, they want to see a secret ballot vote take place as well, more or less along the American model. Can you talk a bit about how that might jeopardize the organizing drive or give opportunities for interference in the gap between cards submitted and the vote date?

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: Yes, we have a number of examples, but I can't put a name on them today. In Ontario, since the legislation was changed, we've had as high as 80% of people sign a card, but once the organizing drive is opened up, because you have to have the vote, the employers start with a very sophisticated campaign of intimidation and threats. A lot of them use American consultants who are experts in providing this kind of advice to employers, and the vote actually turns out to be much different from the democratic indication when people are free from threats.

• 1635

[English]

Again, I would remind you of the comments I made on your first question, Mr. Martin. This is about power. Tory governments in the province of Ontario, and many Tory governments across the country, have always recognized that there is an incredible imbalance of power in the workplace as opposed to even in the community. They've always said you can't get a free or democratic expression of what workers really want through a vote in a workplace, where workers are subject to the intimidation I just talked about.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hargrove and Mr. Martin.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.

Clause 50 deals with the giving of the names and addresses of off-site workers to union organizers. What's missing there, in my opinion, is the element of the consent of the workers themselves. Since you didn't speak against that, I'll have to assume you're in favour of the worker's address, home phone number, and so forth being turned over by the employer to the union organizer. Would you care to speak to that?

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: I would relate it to the democratic parliamentary structures, Mr. Johnston, which both you and I are part of and supportive of, or you wouldn't be here.

When you have an election in your province, either federally or provincially, a voters' list, with the names and addresses of voters, is put out to all parties. It's posted in a lot of public places. We don't find that offensive. Why would we think a union that wants to assist workers, or workers who want to ensure the union has access to them, shouldn't have this information? It's somehow restricted under this instance, but not in any other.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, in your previous remarks you talked about pressure tactics that could be put on employees by an employer. Surely that's not exactly a one-way street. There may be some instances in which pressure tactics are used by the union to get people to sign cards. If people are aware of it up front and give their consent, I'd be all for it, but what is missing here is the element of consent.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: We could use the same argument, Mr. Johnston, in an election. We have a lot of people who go around knocking on doors, soliciting support for different political parties. I think that's the way to do it in a democracy. Some of those people could be, and probably are, involved in intimidation. We've had some examples of that over the years, but we don't throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. We don't let a limited number of people who violate democratic rights dictate what the rights of others are going to be.

Again I would argue that by cutting off people's access, or the union's access to say to people they can help their situation, especially when they're isolated in the home, you do a major disservice to working people and you transfer a lot more power to the employers who already have too much.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I can see that we have a basic philosophical difference—

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: You would agree with me on the election, though, right? You'd agree that you get the voters' list in an election.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I don't agree that I intimidate any voters.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: I never suggested you did.

The Chairman: Philosophical differences between you and Buzz—that's shocking, actually.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, it is a bit of a stretch.

I notice you are very strong, as we might expect you to be, on the fact that you don't want to see the right to strike in any way impeded, yet you don't make any mention at all of the fact that proposed section 87.7 of the bill makes essential workers out of stevedores when it comes to grain, and you make absolutely no comment on it. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: In my general comments, I said I am very concerned about the government's lack of respect for the right to strike more generally. I assume the union that represents those workers will strongly make their case as to why they think they should have the right to strike. I didn't believe it was my role today to usurp their bargaining agent in making that case for them.

• 1640

But I clearly stated, Mr. Johnston, as a Canadian and as someone who believes in democratic government and elections and how we do things, that I am terribly offended by the lack of respect on the part of the Liberal government in the last few years for the right of working people in the federal jurisdiction to exercise the right to strike.

The Chairman: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Hargrove, clause 46 in Bill C-19 would open up the possibility of having workplace disruptions and union raiding so that multiple unions could go in and compete for card sign-ups. I'm wondering if you're in favour of that.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: Everybody pretty well knows my position. In terms of section 18, I think there's a number of jurisdictions, especially in the federal jurisdiction, where there are too many unions. Any legislation that accommodates moving to narrow that in a democratic fashion and that gives the workers and their unions an option as to how they do that I think should be supported by Parliament.

Mr. Rob Anders: So what's commonly referred to as the practice of union raiding, which would be made available in Bill C-19, is something you'd be in favour of?

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: Again, I don't see it as union raiding. There's a problem when you have several unions under the same roof or representing workers with the same company. There's a problem for the company and there's a problem for the unions. It's not a very healthy situation.

I repeat, as long as the system is like it is in the Canadian Labour Congress, where we have a democratic right in input. We have no raiding rules, but we also have a procedure where you can govern the contacts of unions that want to eliminate what I believe is a very unhealthy situation that's not very helpful for the workers. The way I read the legislation, I don't find it offensive in that sense.

Mr. Rob Anders: So short-term disruptions in the workplace would be advantageous in order to determine who one bargaining agent was as opposed to finding competing bargaining agents.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: I've found elections for unions and those kinds of votes disruptive, I find a lot of employer tactics disruptive, but this democratic exercise of workers to say they want to sign a union card with another union, which is the way the Canadian Labour Congress conducts their business, I think is healthy.

Mr. Rob Anders: Good healthy competition.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hargrove is the first representative of the union movement. Because this is déjà vu, the second round of the same bill with some modifications, I'm of the opinion that we're going to hear a number of employer groups tell us this particular piece of legislation is not the agreement that was made when we worked through FETCO. You've said in your presentation that in fact it is.

You work very closely with the Canadian Labour Congress and with the employer groups. Would it be fair to say that people will come here taking off their FETCO hat and putting on their individual hat to say that if they had done it all by themselves, this is what they would have gone looking for and asking for? In fact, they all have agreed this is sort of a compromise and in the making of labour legislation that's normally the way we do business in Canada.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: Yes. It is consistent with the way labour relations work, including collective bargaining and ratification. If you went to a ratification meeting and said to the workers that you want an individual vote on each area of settlement, such as wages, pensions, health care benefits, and time off the job, you'd see that a lot of workers would reject one area but not the other, as you would the in employers groups here, as you would in the labour movement.

But there was a consensus reached here on what we, as an employers group and as a labour movement, could collectively support in the legislature. I think that's a very important initiative. The Ontario government, for example, never even attempted to get people together. They didn't allow any hearings, any input, in spite of an outcry from a lot of very decent business people saying this is wrong. They ignored all of that. I compliment the Liberal government for at least holding these hearings and for the second time giving the employers group and our union and others an opportunity to make their case.

Mr. Robert Nault: Would you be of the opinion, then, that when people come forward, like the last presenter, who obviously had representation on the employer side of this particular equation, they're just coming back to where they originally started having this discussion of what they would prefer? In fact, it's sort of a wish list. I guess my problem with that, Mr. Hargrove, is that it almost suggests to the committee that we entertain those suggestions at this point in the process when in fact this has been going on for three or four years now.

• 1645

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: Yes. Mr. Gagliano was the minister, we went through Madame Robillard and now Mr. MacAulay, and we went through an election, so it's been a long, dragged out process.

Mr. Robert Nault: So I just caution the members that we're going to hear somewhat of a skewed view of what FETCO already agreed to.

The other one that's really of concern to me is the issue of proposed sections 87.2 and 87.3. You say the 60-day period in proposed section 87.3 and the 72-hour notice in proposed section 87.2 should be rethought, because you think they will serve only to encourage strike action. I know even my right-wing friends would not be in favour of encouraging strike action. Could you or your colleague give me a better explanation of what that means? That's a very serious proposal to make in your summation.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: To try to put it in perspective, let's use the railways, Bob. In our bargaining, we try to develop a strategy that allows us to bargain a collective agreement with one of the employers, and then we go to the other and say, “This is the standard for the railway industry. Now we'd like you to take a look at this.”

In order to do that, we have to bargain with all three employers—CN, CP, and VIA—and we move down to a strike deadline that today is conditional on the minister releasing his report, which I hope he does very quickly, by the way. I'll put a plug in for that while I'm here.

But having said that, we have to take our strike votes and get ready. We've taken our strike votes now. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we select Canadian National as the company we're going to bargain to a deadline with, we end up in a strike situation, and a month down the road we get a settlement or we see a settlement in sight, but in the meantime we look over at CP and say, “Well, gee, the timeframe is running out on our strike vote. We have to either strike CP or go back through the process of going back to our members.”

In a national structure, as the federal jurisdiction is in rail, air, and telecommunications, we have to start this whole process all over again, which delays and frustrates the process. We're forced to make a decision on whether it makes sense for us to strike or whether we delay the bargaining again for several weeks while we get back to asking people to give us authorization for what they've already done.

It just doesn't make any sense. There's not much logic in what's here. It's not a big deal—we'll find a way to deal with it—but we think it helps the process not to put something in there that's going to create a problem as opposed to solving it.

Mr. Robert Nault: My understanding is that at the ports there is a provision already that deals with that, to give notice to the ships coming and going, because that's a lot of money sitting there idle.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: We have no problem with that.

Mr. Robert Nault: Okay, well, that's the one issue, but can I get a sense...? Maybe I'm reading this legislation wrong. You go through the 72-hour period and the 60 days and then you sit on it; you don't have to go on strike. Am I reading that wrong? That's the easiest way around that, as a union: just go through the whole process, get your strike vote, go the 60 days and the 72 hours, and then don't go. Or once you've given notice under the act, maybe the 72 hours is a guarantee that you have to go.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: The 72 hours is not as big a concern, Bob, as the 60 days.

Mr. Robert Nault: Once you go through the 60 days, you can still sit on that, and then as long as you—

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: Not to my knowledge. I think the 60 days is pretty clear. You either have a settlement or a strike within that period or you have to go through the process again. That's the basis for our presentation.

Mr. Robert Nault: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

Thank you, Mr. Hargrove.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The Chairman: Hopefully this will be the only time you have déjà vu.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: For the information of members of the committee, we meet at 3.30 p.m. tomorrow at this location.

The meeting is adjourned.