[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
.1038 
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, everyone. I would like to call the meeting to order.
As you know, we are currently studying Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Today we have the pleasure of having with us representatives from la Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec. We have Mr. Émile Vallée, political adviser; Michel Lajeunesse, regional vice-president; and Joseph Gargiso, union adviser.
Welcome, gentlemen. As you know, you have half an hour, so you could perhaps take ten to fifteen minutes for your presentation. Then we will follow with a fifteen-minute question-and-answer session. Welcome. You may begin.
[Translation]
Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've already introduced the people with me today. I would like to say at the outset that we are very pleased to appear before you today. For a number of years, we have been asking for amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Several governments and ministers have come and gone in that time. It is therefore a pleasure for us to come to talk about the proposed amendments today.
Just to give you some background, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec is the largest labour organizations in Quebec. It is made up of over 475,000 members in all sectors. They include 100,000 federally-regulated employees, 25,000 of whom work in the public service, and some 75,000 of whom are covered by the Canada Labour Code in fields such as aeronautics, aviation, transportation, the marine sector, communications and banks. Consequently, we apply the Canada Labour Code in a wide variety of sectors.
Bill C-66, which is some 45 pages long, is quite detailed. I'm sure you know that better than we. We will not spend time reviewing all the clauses in the bill, but we'll rather focus on certain parts or certain specific points.
We will start by looking at the amendments to the Canada Labour Relations Board. We are pleased to see that the new Board will become representative of the parties. That has been one or our traditional demands, almost since the time the Board became non-representative, in the early 1970's. We note as well that the Board will have some part-time members. We think these two characteristics should give the Board the flexibility it needs to meet the demand. They are also in keeping with the consensus that emerged during the discussions between the union representatives, under the umbrella of the Canadian Labour Congress and other union groups, and the employer associations that hire federally-regulated employees. Of course, they are also compatible with the recommendations contained in the Sims Report. We welcome the proposed changes in the Board's structure.
.1040
We have also noticed that the bill gives a great deal of latitude with respect to the use of the powers formerly held by the Board. They are now confirmed in the bill. We hope the Board will act with diligence.
In the past, we have noticed that in some circumstances, for example when specific unions asked the Board to get involved in cases where they felt the employer had been bargaining in bad faith, the Board sometimes tended to take a little too long in our view. We hope the Board will be able to avoid situations such as those at Giant Yellowknife Mines Limited and Air Transat. We feel that in those cases, the employers were clearly attacking the union's representativeness. We hope that is over and that there will be no other such incidents in the years ahead.
As to the proposed changes to the Code regarding certification, we would just mention a minor change to clause 34, which relates particularly to longshoring. I understand you will be hearing from the longshoremen's representatives later. They will have an opportunity to explain their opinion. I must admit that we scratched our heads trying to understand what was meant by adding the words "actively engaged" to subclause 34(1), on page 15. We would like to understand what those words add to the current wording, and what the objective here is.
We also notice that there are a number of proposed changes in the area of successor rights. Clearly, we are pleased to see that certifications and collective agreements that occurred when a group was under provincial jurisdiction will be respected once the group comes under federal jurisdiction, and that we will not have to have the cards signed again and the collective agreement renewed. Certification and the collective agreement will automatically be accepted by the new executive. That is certainly a step in the right direction. We hope that the same will be done in the case of provincial codes, because the trend in recent years has been more in the opposite direction - there is more often a movement away from federal jurisdiction and toward provincial jurisdictions.
We would also like to comment on clause 47.3, which deals with obligations of an employer who gets a contract and who is required to pay remuneration at least equal to that offered under the collective agreement in effect with the former employer. I would like to mention an issue in which I was involved, in which a subcontractor had signed a union collective agreement. Subsequently, under the former legislation, as soon as there were open bids, the new employer was no longer in any way required to comply with the collective agreement and the employees' working conditions. This tactic was often used by employers to get rid of a union.
In a case in which I intervened directly, the new employer had presented its bid and obtained the contract without even having any employees. The first thing he did was to recruit the same employees who had been doing the work in the past. Since no other employee had the required skills, he simply hired the same employees back. There was no collective agreement, no minimum working conditions. The working conditions and the salaries dropped. Through no fault of their own, these employees saw their overall salaries drop. The proposed amendment to the legislation is therefore desirable.
We have also noticed that clause 109.1 would allow unions to have access to off-site workers. We think this provision reflects an openness towards the reality of the labour world today.
.1045
It will also enable the union movement to track developments in industry. We are pleased about this amendment as well.
We are particularly concerned about a clause on bargaining. I'm referring to the one that provides that a strike vote is valid for a 60-day period only. We have serious reservations about this clause.
First of all, some votes take a very long time. In some places, votes may take some four weeks, because they are very large national units. If we want to have a serious vote, we have to have union representatives and union meetings held throughout the area. That takes time. The requirement to take a vote every 60 days could, in some cases, not only not be helpful to the bargaining process, but actually slow it down, because the union would be required to spend half of its time getting strike votes in order to have any power at the bargaining table. Unions would be wasting time that they should be spending at the bargaining table.
We would also like to mention that the same clause gives any worker the right to challenge the strike vote. While we are not seeking to deny that, there is a question about exercising a democratic right. We are afraid that the time required to have the case studied by the Board would delay labour relations. In most unions' bylaws, there is already provision for challenges of this type. In our view, this clause would interfere in the internal functioning of the unions. We do not think that there have really been cases where strike votes have been abused.
I would now like to turn the floor over to Michel Lajeunesse.
Mr. Michel Lajeunesse (Regional Vice-President, (SIEPB), Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee. I've been asked to summarize the FTQ's comments on the provisions regarding replacement workers in cases of strikes or lockouts.
I don't need to remind anyone here that these provisions bother just about everyone. It is a sensitive part of the bill, and we will limit ourselves to our main comments on the subject.
This bill contains some measures which, while not secondary, are less important, some clarifications that we appreciate, including the fact that replacement workers - scabs as we call them - are not considered wage-earners. We think this clarification is essential. Contrary to what is happening in the United States, there will be a guarantee that workers on strike or locked out will be hired before any replacement worker who has done the job during the labour dispute. We appreciate the improvements and clarifications in this regard.
However, when it talks about the use of replacement workers, the bill does not go far enough. The main purpose of an anti scab provision or legislation - and I think that where such measures are in effect, they have a positive effect - is to prevent an unduly prolonged labour dispute or a hardening of positions in Quebec and in other provinces, whether there is a better balance of power between the parties in the labour dispute, anti scab legislation has some incentive effects, both for the employer, to encourage them to settle the dispute as quickly as possible, and for the employees, to ensure that the dispute does not become too emotional. In this respect, the provisions contained in the bill do not go far enough.
.1050
We would have hoped the provisions contained in this bill would have been modeled on those in the Quebec, Saskatchewan or British Columbia legislation, and the legislation that existed for a very brief period in Ontario and may come back some day.
We also wonder what is meant by the expression "undermining a trade union's representational capacity". We think this wording is general in scope and would leave it up to the case law and to the arbitration of third parties to find a definition whose meaning would be based in practice. We think there is a danger there.
There is a danger because labour disputes happen without choice being involved. They are not necessary legal cases. When we know that we have to defend a difficult point of interpretation before the courts, normally our lawyers choose the case that provides the best defence for the interpretation we are seeking. In the case of a labour dispute, that is not always easy; in fact it is impossible to be selective.
So the first individuals who have to study what is meant by the words "undermining a trade union's representational capacity", will have a very heavy responsibility, in my view, and it might be advisable for Parliament to train us better.
I would draw your attention to some of the questions that come to mind when we read these words. The "trade union's representational capacity", could be varied, or at least, it could take very many forms.
A small union, in subcontracting, in the aviation industry, for example, could be undermined by certain steps taken by the employer which, in a large union, could be tolerated. Where do we draw the line? We think the door is being left open to a variable definition, which would mean that each case would become a test case, and the provision could become a catch-all.
We are also concerned about the fact that this bill authorizes the use of replacement workers, and thereby allows for even more abuse of the type practised at Air Canada. Just last week, Air Canada, one of our major Canadian companies, was recruiting scabs very openly, through newspaper advertisement, at a salary higher than that paid to unionized workers. It was offering them training bonuses, which would be given at an undefined rate. We are not sure we are protected against attitudes and abuse of this type by the provisions that are supposed to do just that.
We have the same concern about a situation that exists at the Laurentian Bank of Canada at the moment. Under the proposed Labour Code, what would happen in a case in which the only bank with unionized employees in Canada, through unfair practices - which are being brought to the CLRB's attention at the moment - and through such abusive actions as declaring new types of managerial exclusions, would force employees into the non unionized labour pool, with the specific objective of getting rid of them some day without the union having any say in the matter whatsoever?
Is this what is meant by the words "undermining a trade union's representational capacity"? Are we talking about such events occurring in the middle of the bargaining process? We think so, and we think this might be easy to prove in these two cases.
In other cases, it would be much more difficult, because in a labour dispute, there are land mines everywhere. We would not want to wait for an explosion and then be forced to face the fact that our representational capacity had just disappeared into thin air.
.1055
Those were the comments and concerns we wanted to mention regarding clause 42. Generally, we in the FTQ think that despite its flaws, the bill is a step in the right direction. It contains some definite improvement. However, after waiting 25 years, we are still not satisfied with some of its provisions.
We would urge you to pass the bill as quickly as possible with whatever amendments you care to make. We think that generally, the bill will help ensure a better balanced situation and industrial peace for all those who come under federal jurisdiction.
On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank you. Do you have any questions for us?
The Chairman: I would like to thank you for your very interesting presentation, we will now begin the question period, and the first questioner is from the Bloc Québécois.
Ms Lalonde.
Ms Lalonde (Mercier): Thank you very much for your clear and accurate presentation, which shows that you really know what you are talking about.
If you had to set some priorities in the amendments you would like to see made to the bill, what would they be?
Mr. Lajeunesse: We mentioned two. Émile may have others to add. Our major priority is that replacement workers be totally outlawed, as is already the case in some provinces, particularly Quebec. This ban on replacement workers has proven its worth. I think in this way, the parties have less leeway to try to get around the provisions of the Code or to try to stretch their meaning so much that they become meaningless.
One concern that may seem minor, but which is strategically important for us and important in concrete, practical terms, is the provision about the 60-day period for strike votes. That will be impossible. That would throw everything into complete chaos. Some unions will be voting constantly, and the result will be that only one of the parties will be demobilized. Think about that again. It is really not a very good idea.
Mr. Joseph Gargiso (Union Advisor (SCEP), Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): The provisions referred to about the bargaining procedures, including the 60-day period, are not very practical. Even employers will agree with us on that. In a unit with locals throughout Canada made up of 20,000 workers from Newfoundland to Vancouver, it might take a month to organize a vote. This would delay the process unduly.
You will have noticed that we said nothing about the fact that the same clause requires that we take a strike vote by secret ballot. This provision has been in the Quebec code for a long time, and is contained in most if not all union by-laws. They sometimes contain provisions that are more demanding than those of the Code. However, the 60-day period will not facilitate the process.
The ability to challenge the results of a strike vote amounts to interference, because there are procedures provided for in union by-laws to allow members to challenge decisions made at general meetings. This is another procedure that will delay the process.
Although the bill provides that the Canada Industrial Relations Board could use a summary procedure, this will mean delays. An inquiry has to be carried out before the Board makes its ruling. This too will delay the process.
Those are two points that do not promote good labour relations and should be eliminated in our view.
.1100
Ms Lalonde: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): You presented an excellent argument, that is, that you hope that the bill will follow along the same lines as legislation in Quebec, even regarding replacement workers. I'm sure that all my colleagues around the table will take note of this. Moreover, you are pleased with two provisions in the bill, one stating that a scab cannot be considered to be a wage earner and the other setting hiring priorities in the case of the conflict.
You told us how difficult it would be to interpret the representational capacity of a union based on the size of the union.
Could you give us some very concrete, practical examples, so that this will be very clearly described in the report? It should be pointed out that everyone is concerned about this concept. What does "representational capacity" mean? Who will define this? Will it be part of guidelines set by the Canada Industrial Relations Board? Will it be based on previous jurisprudence?
When consultations began last summer, no one expected the minister to use this type of formula. I'm convinced that you were just as surprised as we were.
This idea that it could be defined differently for unions depending on the means of action that they possess, must certainly be taken into consideration by all members present. Given that you represent several unions in some very different fields, could you teach us a little bit about this by providing us with some specific examples?
Mr. Lajeunesse: Listen, we probably can't provide you with concrete examples, however we can give you an idea of what could become a problem.
Let us take the example of a union, a local, a group or a unit of approximately 50 people. The financial capacity of this union may very well be limited. That is not the case for the union I was just talking about. That of the Laurentian Bank of Canada, which has about 1600 major affiliates.
Currently there are practices that are considered to be unfair labour practices, whether these occur at Air Canada, where there is also a big union, or at the Laurentian Bank where tens and tens of thousands of dollars can be used strictly for legal purposes, either to pay lawyers and researchers, or to appear before the Canada Board. There is a whole group of people working on their cases.
In the case of a large union, unfair labour practices that have been discovered may, over time, be identified as being the employer's usual practice. In such a case, these practices do not threaten the very life of the union, its representation or its representational capacity. However, in the case of the union that only has about 50 people, whose financial capacity is limited and whose employer is consciously engaging in openly unfair labour practices, this practice may undermine the representational capacity of the union. That may be perceived by the Canada Board as being tolerable when there is a very large union, but will that also be the case for a very small union, where the impact will be completely different?
The same applies to certain stalling tactics. There is a whole series of practices, but I would not want to... The message that I want to send is that undermining the representational capacity - we're not just talking about representational capacity, but also representation - means undermining more than just the representational capacity, in my opinion.
I will stop there. In the report it should be pointed out that one same action can lead to two different decisions or two very different outcomes.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lajeunesse. Mr. Nault.
[English]
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very interested in the whole issue of divisions five and six, which are about the whole issue of obligations relating to strikes and lockouts and the other issue dealing with the whole process of conciliation reports. For practical reasons, I'd like an explanation that would make it very clear to some of the members in the committee who have never been through a strike process in the federal jurisdiction.
.1105
My understanding is that the changes to the notice period and the strike vote and those kinds of mechanisms have been put in line with what they do in the provinces. It can be argued by some in the business that this is more in line with deadline bargaining: you have a deadline, and there's no flexibility by the conciliation officer any more or by the minister but in fact now you have set time lines.
For the 60 days, for example, for the strike vote to be taken - I'm an ex-railroader and an ex-unionist in that particular profession - to have a strike vote in the industry I worked for takes a minimum of 45 days, because you have to send a ballot to everybody and they're not all in one location. It cost roughly $50,000 to have one of these strike votes the last time I was around; it might be a little more now.
I'm trying to get a sense of whether in fact it's even possible to have a strike vote unless you have a strike vote before you start to negotiate. My fear of this change, of course - and I mentioned this already to the officials and to the minister - is that in fact what we're going to do and what the CAW does now is have a strike vote before it even starts negotiating, and that changes the total dynamics of the negotiation process.
Can you tell me whether you agree with that and whether in fact all unions will have to do that to make sure they have their strike vote in their pocket, so that they won't have to go and have another strike vote, which is in most cases not practical or too expensive to do, which is the reason they'll be forced to do it before they even start? Can you tell me whether that in fact is going to happen, in your minds? At least from my end of it, I think that's probably what will take place.
[Translation]
Mr. Gargiso: Generally, according to my experience, when a union asks for a strike vote, it has to do so for a specific reason. Asking for a strike vote at the beginning of negotiations is not very common at all.
Practically speaking, to obtain a strike vote, the union must present the employer's position, the offers that it would have turned down, and then it would ask for a strike vote to move the case ahead. That is what happens in real life.
The problem with the 60-day period is that we don't know when this will happen. The bargaining process is what it is. There are different stages and it can be a short or a long process - you never know. Under the 60-day provision, if a vote to strike is obtained today, and if negotiations continue and a request for conciliation is made, none of that will count after 60 days. After 60 days, the vote is no longer valid under your bill. That means that the union, if it wants to be in a position of strength, must obtain another vote. While it is obtaining that vote, negotiations will cease. Voting will be carried out over 45 days and it will only be after 45 days that communication will take place. It doesn't make sense.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Let me, Mr. Chairman, in the limited time I have.... First, there are significant time-line changes in this bill versus the old bill, and I'm accustomed to the old bill because it's been around for a long time. I've been involved in strikes with that bill, and I know how it works. I understand that.
I'd like an analysis and an explanation from your federation, basically, on whether you think it's going to be an improvement, not just the 60 days but the cooling-off period. The cooling-off period has gone from 36 days to 14 days. There are 22 days missing. So that means the conciliator has 14 days after negotiations break down to get back to the table. Most of the time it's a good idea to disappear for two weeks, cool off and give people time to go home and see their family for a change, because they're usually negotiating for two to three solid weeks.
In the railway industry, at least, we'd go to Montreal for a month and we wouldn't see our family, and then things would fall apart. We'd like to go home for a week or two, but under this new system I don't even think they can go home. They just have to start all over again, and there's no time for rest. What I'd like to get from the unions and from the employers, if we could, is an analysis that we can do this in the federal jurisdiction.
.1110
Secondly, I'd like a response as to why it is in here in the first place. I'd like to know whether this has been discussed with the unions and the employers and what is the intention of making these changes. Can you tell me why we're changing this if in fact the system used to work before?
The last one, which as a politician I'm opposed to, is that we have taken the minister's flexibility out of this bill completely. The minister has no mechanism any more to delay strikes through conciliation, where we would get them to keep talking. Now it's ``this is the time line, this is it, now you go on strike''.
I'd like to know what your opinion is on that, and some information, because this is a major problem I see with this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Gargiso: We decided as a group to not comment on that section. Generally speaking, from my perspective, the philosophy of this bill is to leave it more and more to the parties to resolve their problems.
Some people say that the Minister no longer has the necessary flexibility to slow things down, but we have also heard the opposite, for example, "They should just leave us alone and let us do what we have to do". So these two opinions exist and we decided not to raise this point because generally we agree on the thrust of the bill.
Mr. Lajeunesse: Besides the fact that it is not practical, what may happen, is that the employer will make four, five, or six final offers. He may simply improve his offer and ask us to go back to our members to reconsider the strike vote. If that is not enough, he will add a bit more. Big national unions will have to hold two, three or four meetings to reconsider a strike vote or to consider a slightly improved offer from management. This will be very tiring which will be to the advantage of one of the parties.
In terms of the period of time that can be provided, which is maybe a period of grace to ensure that the parties have considered the issues thoroughly, we think that, insofar as it is possible - this legislation provides the framework for making practices more civilized - one has to be conscientious when the fundamental choices and decisions are being made. People and organizations are reasonable, and when a decision as important as the one to delay a conflict is made, that is a decision to interfere in the strategy of the parties and to interpret their current situation.
We say yes to some delays because sometimes it is necessary. But as my colleague Gargiso said, one has to leave it up to the parties as much as possible to work according to their own dynamics and one has to avoid as much as possible stalling tactics.
Mr. Vallée: Because of all the delays in the Canada Labour Code, there were some industries - we will not name any names - that were taking months and years to negotiate and in the end the situation had reached the point where it could no longer be resolved. Often it was Parliament that had to make the decisions and force a settlement in these sectors.
If I understand the purpose of the bill in terms of conciliation and mediation, the point is to have the parties make their own decisions, to encourage them to reach a settlement rather than have the Minister or members do it for them. Generally speaking, we are very comfortable with that objective.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, a brief question and a brief answer.
Mr. Nault: One example of how this will work in practical terms is that in the railway industry there are seven different unions. The CAW is now the biggest union of the mix.
If you take the 60-day necessity for a strike vote, you take the 60 days and you do it in advance, so by the time the negotiation breaks down - say January 1 the negotiations are broken down and you have a strike vote in your pocket - it has already been done. You know if you wait a certain amount of time, the 60 days will elapse. You'll have to do it again. No union that has to pay $50,000, $60,000, or $75,000 a crack is going to do that again when they already have it in their pocket.
.1115
In the railway union, after the negotiations break down it has 14 days. The cooling-off period used to be 36 days, but it's now 14 days. What could happen in the rail industry is that the other six unions may not have even started negotiations yet. They may still be just in the process of beginning.
As you know, historically Parliament has legislated the railways back to work. In effect, with the way this time line is structured, Parliament could legislate the railway back to work before the other six unions have even negotiated or discussed their contracts in detail. That has happened. That doesn't happen now because with the flexibility in the old bill you could have a number of months to get the other parties to the table to discuss.
Do you not think that is going to cause a great amount of difficulty? Do you not think Parliament is going to legislate the whole group back to work and not just one union? In effect what could happen here is a union might never negotiate because another larger union would take over the process.
Mr. Vallée: But how could Parliament legislate the group back that is not out and has not started to bargain?
Mr. Nault: It used to do that very easily.
Mr. Vallée: I think you would have to ask yourself some serious questions about what you do with the bargaining process in that situation.
Mr. Nault: I think there are some major problems with the time lines and I don't think the unions have thought this through. I don't think the employers have thought this through. My perception of this change is there will be a strike every January 1.
Mr. Vallée: I have concerns, but I assume the Canadian Labour Congress will be coming.
[Translation]
He will be appearing later this week. There will be representatives from the rail sector and they will probably be in a better position to answer that question.
[English]
Mr. Nault: My main emphasis is to have the federation think about this very seriously and do an analysis of the old bill and the new bill. I'd like, through you, Mr. Chairman, to ask the department to give us the time lines. It's hard to look at unless you understand the system.
If you break it down into days you can see the differences in how the process works in much more simplistic terms. If it does that, it will notice how this has changed dramatically.
In an industry like the auto industry this works very effectively because they're all in one place. You can have a strike vote in a day or a weekend. Try that in the airline industry, where someone as a pilot, for example, happens to be in China or some other country and by the time you get hold of him or her it's six weeks later. It takes a lot longer to have a strike vote.
I don't think it's practical in the federal jurisdiction. I think we should have an analysis by the department of those two changes.
Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Yes.
Mr. Nault: This is the first union we've had, and I think that's important to remember. I still can't get an explanation of why this change has been made in the first place. I can't figure it out. The Sims report has talked somewhat about it, but it's not as clear to me because of the differences between how federal and provincial unions deal with their membership. I'd like an analysis done on that before we get to clause-by-clause.
The Chairman: Yes. That assignment will be given, of course, to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Proud, who will inform the committee as to the reasoning behind such a change.
Mr. Lajeunesse, very briefly - we're running behind today.
[Translation]
Mr. Lajeunesse: If I have understood the gentleman's approach correctly, one of the problems that could occur in increasing delays or in providing too much framework, is that after a strike vote, the minister or the conciliation officers could call everyone back with a period to strike of 13 or 14 days. It should not be forgotten that in some sectors there are strategic times and productivity peaks.
It could therefore be very easy to use this strategy to take advantage of all the delays provided for within the legislation in order to skip production peaks or productivity peaks of the business. Employees could then strike for eight months, four months of intense production having been saved because all the delays provided for would have been used under legislation that unfortunately, goes too far in providing a framework for the parties' dynamics.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lajeunesse. As always, thanks very much for a very thoughtful presentation. Obviously, judging by the number of questions and the interest certain sections of the bill have generated because of your presentation, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you very much for your contribution to the process.
.1120
We'll take a two-minute break and be back with Centrale des syndicats nationaux.
.1121
.1126
The Chairman: I'd like to call the meeting back to order.
We now have the pleasure of welcoming the Centrale des syndicats nationaux. We have Mr. Roger Valois, Maurice Sauvé, John Mancini and Claude Tremblay. Welcome, gentlemen.
As you know, you have a half hour. It will be divided into 10 to 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by 10 to 15 minutes for questions and answers. Welcome. We look forward to your contribution toward improving Bill C-66. You may begin.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Valois (Vice-President, Confederation of National Trade Unions (CNTU)): Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, on behalf of the 235,000 workers who are CNTU workers, within 2200 certified local unions in all economic sectors of Quebec, we thank you for having provided us with the opportunity to give you our point of view on Bill C-66, even though we have already had the opportunity to do so before the working group responsible for revising Part I of the Canada Labour Code.
Let us point out that CNTU has about 6000 members subject to federal labour legislation. They are to be found mainly in the sectors of communication, inter-provincial transport of merchandise, or passengers, as well as in some agri-food sectors, such as mills.
Even though the CNTU is mainly prevalent in Quebec, it also has unions in Ontario and New Brunswick, some of which are subject to federal labour legislation.
Our presentation today is part of the CSN's long tradition of non-partisan union and political action.
Members of the committee, we cannot hide our disappointment over the timid nature of Bill C-66, especially with respect with the use of scabs during labour conflicts, and the absence of stronger provisions for bargaining and for the transfer of rights and obligations, during the sale, rental, transfer or other type of use of a business.
The CNTU believes that the bargaining structure must be modified. Before the Sims working group we said:
- The CNTU feels that the notice to bargain must be the trigger for exercising the right to strike.
Exercising the right to strike should not be left up to the minister. We believe that the formal
notice to bargain should suffice, as it does currently in Quebec.
Second, a union must provide a 72-hour notice and, most importantly, hold a secret ballot vote with rules that could easily lead to the vote being challenged. A mechanism to have the vote declared invalid by any member of the bargaining union that is dissatisfied is even provided for.
We would remind you that our affiliated unions hold secret ballot votes, but a member may never contest a vote if it would prevent a legal strike from being held, contrary to what the proposed section 87.3(4) states on page 27 of bill C-66.
Conciliation: The CNTU stated before the Sims working group:
- ... that the use of conciliation should be an optional stage. At all stages of negotiation...
- I will refrain from reading the rest of the paragraph.
Secret ballot vote on final management offers: The CNTU recalled before the Sims working group:
- ... its opposition to the Minister, at its discretion, being able to order a secret ballot vote on the
final management offers. This provision in the Code must be repealed. We believe that this
authority provided to the department is abusive and that it is an insult to unions that have been
democratically elected by their workers.
Bill C-66 keeps section 108.1 and we repeat our request that this provision be repealed.
Maintaining working conditions: CNTU repeats its request that a specific provision be included in the Canada labour Code to allow parties to roll over their working conditions in a collective agreement and that working conditions contained in a collective agreement continue to apply until a new collective agreement has been signed. It is unacceptable that the Canada Labour Code does not already contains a provision similar to section 59 of the Quebec Labour Code.
There is already jurisprudence from the Canada Board on the illegality of provisions in collective agreements that maintain working conditions until the collective agreement has been renewed because the Code is silent on that issue. That ruling, made under the British Columbia Labour Code, was in fact confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada under similar legislative circumstances, the Paccar case. The Code must be amended so that it provides parties with stability and continuity in their working conditions during the bargaining process. Bill C-66 is completely silent on that issue.
Bill C-66 does not amend in any significant way the provisions of the Canada Labour Code on technological change.
CNTU feels that provisions on technological change should not be implemented in a workplace until after an agreement has been negotiated, with the right to strike being allowed in case of disagreement. The definition of "technological change" should be broad enough to take into account all types of modern technology. With reasonable notice, the information provided to the union should include all economic, technical and organizational aspects of the employer's project. A detailed explanation of the project, a cost analysis, a benefit analysis, jobs affected, an evaluation of labour, the effect on work organization and a time frame for carrying out the project.
The union should be able to check all information, with the assistance of the experts if necessary, regarding all aspects of the project and its potential consequences for the business workers.
Reinstatement of workers after a conflict: the CNTU can only support the obligation, under clause 87.6, to reinstate employees in the bargaining unit who are on strike or locked out, in preference to scabs, but it regrets that employers are still allowed to use scabs. We will come back to that later.
Certification when unfair labour practices occur: the CNTU supports section 99.1 that allows the Board to certify despite a lack of evidence of majority support by the employees in the unit if the employer has failed to comply with the prohibition on unfair labour practices, i.e. if the Board is of the opinion that but for the unfair labour practices, the trade union could reasonably have been expected to have had the support of a majority of the employees in the unit.
Transfer when the business is carried on by another employer: the Canada Labour Code must guarantee the transfer of rights and obligations in all cases where a business or part of it is continued by another employer. It must, in fact, ensure that the accreditation and the agreement are transferred wherever there is a transfer of operations, concession or subcontracting, regardless of the nature of the transaction and whether or not there is a legal link between the former employer bound by the accreditation and the agreement and the new employer.
Bear in mind that requiring a legal link between the former and the new employer gives rise to a host of legal possibilities, such as the creation of new corporations or legal entities.
Given that corporations under federal jurisdiction will be privatized in the future, and considering the current tendency to contract out, we must be vigilant and not give rise to major problems, to a trend marked by de-unionization and to challenges to industrial and social peace.
We salute the amendment contained in Bill C-66 relating to the transfer of a provincial jurisdiction to a federal jurisdiction.
Antiscab provisions and essential services: the absence of antiscab provisions in the Canada Labour Code enables employers to bring in strikebreakers during the labour dispute with full impunity. Recourse to strikebreakers during a dispute is, in our view, a denial of the legal rights to negotiate and to strike, rights which were hard to win.
.1135
The absence of antiscab provisions is a fundamental flaw which will result in longer labour disputes and the creation of an imbalance that will hinder free negotiations.
Hiring scabs during a labour dispute is a source of frustration and violence. The presence of replacement workers escorted by private security agencies, when it is not police forces paid with our taxes, is appalling, provocative and unacceptable for employees who have built the reputation of a company or an institution.
The case of the ADM Ogilvie workers is a recent example of the need for antiscab provisions.
During the dispute, which lasted 16 months, from June 1994 to September 1995, these workers and their families suffered from the absence of antiscab provisions, as the president of the workers union for ADM Ogilvie, Mr. Claude Tremblay, will tell you. While the employer ensured its production with impunity, the workers, stripped of their dignity to proudly exercise their trade, had to exhaust the savings they had accumulated over the years to provide for themselves and their families on a daily basis and not to lose their houses.
We can only deplore that the right to strike, required in the balance set out in the Canada Labour Code, is still in 1996 a right that is not accompanied by provisions making it possible to ensure full respect. We know the results of violent conflicts as well as the problems brought about by the presence of scabs at the end of work stoppages. All we need to do is think back to the mining conflicts in the North-West Territories.
Remember that initially in Quebec, there was no consensus when the antiscab provisions were adopted. Employers, the chambers of commerce and the Quebec Liberal Party were strongly opposed to them, saying that antiscab legislation would increase the number of conflicts and would extend their duration, because it would give more power to the union. However, the opposite is true. Since then, there have been fewer and generally shorter conflicts than in the past.
These fears were unfounded, to such an extent that today, the antiscab provisions are no longer challenged, and we can even say that there is consensus in Quebec. It is not because we have measures preventing scabs from being called in during a labour dispute in Quebec that workers exercise their right to strike more often. Thinking that way would be misjudging union democracy in Quebec and treating the intelligence of workers with contempt. For them, exercising the right to strike remains the final means of improving their living and working conditions.
Adopted during the Parti Québécois government's first mandate, this Act was not withdrawn under the last government formed by the Liberal Party of Quebec, which was in power for nine years. Bear in mind that Quebec Liberal Party kept this Act despite one of its own reports, the Scowen Report, which recommended the elimination of the Act.
In addition, we cannot wait for consensus in this area. Waiting for consensus or approval for management is like saying no to antiscab legislation in the Canada Labour Code.
We must innovate and make progress on social issues. The current government must honour the commitments it made first of all when it was in opposition and then when dealing with the Ogilvie workers, in October 1994, when it was in power. If the government adopts true antiscab legislation, there will be a consensus in Canada in a few years on the merit of such legislation, as was the case in Quebec.
Introducing antiscab measures into the Canada Labour Code will give unions and their members some tools to protect themselves from certain large American corporations that want to set up in Canada, but they pay little respect to the traditions of dialogue that have been developed during recent years.
These provisions would clearly indicate to these employers that they must abide by the laws and traditions that are enforced in Canada. In other words, introducing antiscab measures in the Canada Labour Code will protect us from the pattern of American collective agreements, which are weak in the areas of seniority, professional training, health and safety, just to name a few.
Antiscab legislation is a guarantee of industrial peace.
We are asking for antiscab legislation based on the provisions of section 109.1 of the Quebec Labour Code, and not on the provisions set out in Bill C-66, which stipulates that it is forbidden to use scabs for the purpose of undermining a trade unions representational capacity. By definition, using scabs is not only undermining, but wiping out a trade union's representational capacity. Scabs are never represented by a union. Proving that it undermines a trade union's representational capacity is another ball game.
.1140
We also believe that true antiscab provisions should be incorporated into sections 94, 97 and 99 of the Canada Labour code. We do not understand why the bill contains provisions on the delivery of essential services, whereas it does not include provisions to prevent the use of scabs. It is unacceptable for employers to be able to use scabs, in addition to requiring essential services. Moreover, recourse to essential services and the use of scabs will lead to confrontation, not only on the picket line, but also within the workplace.
Finally, the CSN fully endorses the demands made by the workers in the workers' union for ADM-Ogilvie to the effect that Parliament must take the steps necessary to put mills back under provincial jurisdiction.
This measure was taken during the war to ensure rationalization of the flour industry in Canada. The provision on mills in Canada was implemented during World War II. Perhaps we need to tell the Canadian Parliament that the war is over. It is perhaps unaware of that.
Mr. Claude Tremblay (President, Workers' Union for ADM-Ogilvie, Centrale des syndicats nationaux): Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity you have given our union to share what we experienced during our recent legal strike, declared under the authority of the Canada Labour code, and our comments on this issue. I hope that you will listen to me more than the working group presided over by Mr. Sims and that you will accept to amend the Bill C-66 and abolish the use of scabs.
The 110 workers that I represent were virtually forced to go on strike on June 6, 1994, after two years of bargaining that went nowhere with our new employer, the American Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
After trying to force us accept its collective agreement, ADM took advantage of a loophole in the Canada Labour Code to impose its agreement on us starting December 10, 1993. Under the Canada Labour Relations Board's case law, an employer may unilaterally change working conditions once the right to strike or lock-out is acquired. This was done even though our former collective agreement provided that it would remain in effect until it was renewed. The case law states - and unfortunately the Canada Labour Code is silent on this matter - that any such provisions are illegal and do not prevent the employer from taking advantage of the legal vacuum.
Since this agreement that was imposed by the employer removed our seniority rights and since the employer was threatening lay-offs and dismissals without taking into account the seniority status, we were forced to go out on trike to prevent the employer from going ahead with its plans and to force us to maintain the working conditions we had acquired over more than 30 years.
Powerful employers such as ADM and most employers that come under the Canada Labour Code already have enough powers without giving them the additional power of imposing their working conditions on us once they acquire their lock-out right.
As a union, we think the Act should maintain the collective agreement at least until the right to strike is exercised. In addition, it should have offered the inclusion in a collective agreement of a clause that would keep the working conditions it provides for in effect until it is renewed.
The Act not only authorizes the use of scabs; it actually encourages the practice.
After a 16-month-long strike, we managed to get an ordinary collective agreement out of ADM. It is ordinary in the Quebec context, but extraordinary compared to the American standard, which ADM has managed to impose on its employees in more than 138 collective agreements throughout its empire.
Day after day, week after week, month after month, we were subject to quiet, insidious, persistent violence: scabs entered and left the building and stole away our rights. Trucks loaded with wheat of flour came and left, the MUC police arrested my co-workers for stupid reasons, security officers hired by ADM spied on us with their cameras in the street, right up to our own doorways, as though we were some type of low bacteria.
.1145
It was very disturbing to find when we return to work that the scabs had made such a mess of things at our plant that they had actually damaged the reputation of quality enjoyed by Five Roses Flour. This reputation is certainly the best guarantee for our jobs, but the Act encourages short-sighted employers to threaten the survival of a business by allowing them to hire unskilled people, just so as to have a psychological edge over us in the bargaining process.
What good did this do ADM, given that in the back-to-work agreement, the company agreed to fire the scabs, and, moreover, not to hire them throughout the duration of the collective agreement?
Not only does the Canada Labour Code not prohibit the hiring of scabs, but the unemployment insurance office in Verdun was actually being used for recruitment purposes. Six months after the labour dispute, about 20 of our members, despite periods of seniority up to 20 years, had still not been called back on a regular basis.
Today, more than 14 months after the dispute has been over, a dozen of our members with about fifteen years of seniority have still not been called back to work. Even though these workers had contributed to unemployment insurance for years, they were not entitled to claim it, whereas the scabs were entitled to full UI benefits after 16 months of illegitimate work.
In our view, this fine system is clearly biased against workers who decide democratically to fight to preserve their rights against large, anonymous and powerful companies, which, like ADM, make over $500 million US in net profit each year.
We think the Canada Labour Code should ban the use of scabs in order to convey a very clear message to foreign employers such as ADM. They are welcome to invest in Canada and Quebec provided they show some respect for the country's way of doing things. These rules then will not be disregarded easily, because the government of Canada, which is supposed to be the government of Canadian workers, will have given us the tools we need to resist if they want to call these rules into question.
To those who think that banning scabs would result in unfairly tipping the scales in favour of the unions, I would say: "Look at what has happened in Quebec, and draw your own conclusions". Workers do not enjoy going on strike. They use the strike only when there is no other solution, because the cost of a strike is always high for each and every worker.
I'll just mention in passing that you might try to find a decent job while you are on strike. Let me know how you manage, particularly given the seemingly never-ending period of high unemployment. Rather than tipping the power balance in favour of the unions, prohibiting employers from using scabs restores the power balance and promotes more reasonable bargaining, in which the employer and the union both have an interest in finding a common ground quickly and developing relations that will enable them to reconcile their divergent interests and to find solutions that will highlight those areas they have in common.
That is why we are asking you to amend the Canada Labour Code to prevent the use of strike breakers or scabs, as is being done in the Quebec Labour Code and as was proposed in Bill C-338, which had first reading on October 22, 1996. This is the only provision for which we are making this request.
Most individuals involved in our labour relations for the first time are always amazed to learn that flour production workers come under the Canada Labour Code. We still find this intriguing, even though our union has existed for more than 30 years. Why is this the case? The fact is that before modern legislation on labour relations came into effect, the federal government used its declaratory power to decree that flour mills came under its jurisdiction.
Perhaps such a measure could be justified in a period of protectionism, at the time of the world war, but that is no longer the case today, particularly since Americans control most of this production, particularly since the Crownest Pass freight rate was abolished and wheat can cross the American boarder easily. There is no longer a logical reason for this.
Like beer production, flour production should be a provincial responsibility. We don't need to go through a difficult constitutional amendment process to achieve this. The federal Parliament need only amend its legislation on wheat and strike out any reference to flour mills. It could even proceed on a provincial basis, if it wanted to, as it did in the case of milling operations. Mills of this type in Quebec and the Maritimes have not been declared to come under federal jurisdiction. I am convinced the Quebec government will do whatever is necessary to include us under its jurisdiction, while maintaining the continuity of existing collective agreements.
.1150
We are therefore asking the federal Parliament to remove flour mills from its jurisdiction, and to do so as quickly as possible. We very much hope that our next round of bargaining will occur under the provisions of the Quebec Labour Code, given the glaring weaknesses of the Canada Labour Code. Thank you for your attention.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tremblay.
[English]
Now we'll move to the question and answer session. Each party will have five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, several new elements have been raised. Are you not trying to make the point that, where the law has been able to, it has considerably contributed to reducing your leverage, whether that be true the obligatory notice, the duration of the strike vote, or even the relationship that you have pointed out between scabs and essential services for the delivery of services? This leaves us to believe that you are quite concerned about a number of provisions that would weaken unions.
Mr. Valois: Bill C-66 practically confirms that hiring scabs is legal. They cannot be hired if the union can prove that they undermine its credibility or its leverage. But to prove that is another matter. The Canada Board can tell us that we are negotiating badly, that we are too demanding, that we have not brought the right provisions to the bargaining table and during all that time, they can continue to produce with scabs.
In fact, our leverage is significantly reduced because Parliament has decided to include these types of provisions in Bill C-66. The leverage that we would have with respect to employers is quite different than the one that exists in Quebec, because in Quebec hiring scabs is prohibited and both parties know what they want. Bargaining is clearer.
Mr. Ménard: Fine. My colleagues would like to ask you about essential services.
Ms Lalonde: Thank you. You have raised a new and very interesting element. I would like you to explain, for the benefit of those people who do not work in the labour sector, the sentence on page 11, namely, that it is surprising that both provisions on essential services and hiring scabs were included and that the use of essential services provisions and provisions for hiring scabs will lead to confrontation, not on the picket lines, but within the workplace.
I mention this because I believe that my colleagues do not have the text in English. Could you explain that because of the provisions on essential services, the union will have to maintain a certain number of activities, but the employer will be able to hire workers if it wants to.
Mr. Valois: Would you like the three or four of us to answer?
Ms Lalonde: Yes, I'm aware of your solidarity.
Mr. Valois: I think that there is a huge gap in the legislation. The new Canada Industrial Relations Board can decree, even for the private sector, that services deemed to be essential must be maintained, but the legislation does not specifically state that replacement workers cannot be hired once essential services have been provided for. Therefore workers could be providing the essential services as ordered and may be working side by side with replacement workers that the employer hired while telling the union that this did not undermine its representational capacity.
This could therefore lead to a situation of conflict. Essential services would be provided by union members and replacement workers would be seen as being "garbage". Perhaps I'm going a bit far, but that is the reality. My colleagues can go into more detail regarding the legal implications.
.1155
Mr. Maurice Sauvé (Assistant to the Executive Committee, Centrale des syndicats nationaux): In terms of essential services, it is clear that in the private sector you can't have an antiscab provision and an essential services provision. That would be much too safe. It means that the employer who does not have enough employees to provide essential services just has to hire scabs; he could produce as much as he wants and could do so in a shameless fashion as ADM Ogilvie did.
Essential services must, by definition, ensure the health and safety of the public. I'd like to say from the outset that we think it is entirely inappropriate for that to apply to the private sector.
In the private sector, in any type of business, there are enough managers who are familiar with work routinely carried out, foremen, for example. Before being a foreman, you have to have been an employee in the plant.
Therefore, in the private sector there's no point in referring to essential services for one simple reason. The people are qualified to ensure the protection of goods. If on top of everything there weren't enough managers... Believe me, unions do not want their plants to be depreciated following a conflict. They would provide services upon agreement with the employer, voluntarily. Therefore, first of all you cannot talk about essential services in the private sector.
Furthermore, we looked at all these provisions in depth from a legal viewpoint and there is nothing that prevents an employer from using scabs if he can use the essential services argument.
In the private sector, this may be acceptable. In Quebec, for example, essential services apply, but there is no provision as such. There are provisions for preventing strike breaking. So the CSN can accept the recognition of essential services in the public sector as long as legislation prohibits the use of scabs.
However, in the case of a bill such as this one, where the antiscab provisions are much too weak, we say that employers will be in an overly safe position. This will lead to violence because it will create a completely unacceptable situation. Even from a legal viewpoint this bill cannot be justified.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. McClelland.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to take the discussion in a slightly different direction with regard to replacement workers and also with regard to the mobility of labour across the country.
I have two questions. I'll put them both and then be very interested in your response. I address them to whoever feels comfortable.
First, in your estimation, is it appropriate for the Canada Labour Code to provide for the mobility of labour? For instance, it's very simple for workers from Quebec to work in Ontario, but vice versa it's particularly difficult. It is a source of considerable consternation in the two provinces. But on a more elemental basis, a citizen of Canada should have the right to work anywhere in the country - period - in my view.
Second, with the notion of replacement workers, and understanding the necessity in a strike situation for both sides in the strike to be vulnerable and to feel the pain of the strike in order to reach a settlement, should there a be provision in the bill - even if it is going to include those measures that will allow for replacement workers you're not happy with - to say that replacement workers must be paid the same amount and that the working conditions must be the same as those of the persons who are being replaced? Would that in some way make the playing field more balanced and speak to some of the questions Mr. Tremblay raised?
.1200
[Translation]
Mr. Valois: As for the first part of your question, we were referring directly to the construction industry in Quebec. It's not that we want to prevent workers from other provinces from working in Quebec; it's that we consider the construction industry to be an industry in itself.
Suppose we put a fence around the construction industry. I don't think that it would be acceptable that an employer in an Hamilton or Sorel steel plant all of a sudden decide to disregard his recall list of available workers who have already worked for him, and that he hire a worker who, without necessarily coming from Ontario, came from a neighbouring city or even the same city, but who wasn't on the recall list or was a new employee.
If there's no one left to call, then an employer in a steel plant like Stelco or the Sorel steel plant may hire new employees as he wishes, as long as he has used up his recall list and that he is complying with the collective agreement in effect. The problem in Quebec that many people do not understand is that we consider the construction industry to be an industry in itself.
It's not because there isn't a fence around the industry that construction workers should not be protected and that employers should be able to hire workers anywhere. We are not referring specifically to Ontario; in Quebec, we encourage regional employment before going to another region. We have nothing against other regions. The industry has to be regulated. When you work in that industry, you must comply with the regulations and you cannot give just anybody the right to participate. For example, this regulation also prevents jobs being sponsored by, for example, certain members of Parliament in Quebec who may know contractors. With that regulation, a worker could be laid off in an industry or a plant and an employer could hire someone who knows a member who knows a contractor and he would not have to use the construction industry's recall list, simply because someone knew the contractor.
Could construction workers who know the plant manager replace workers whose names are on a recall list; that is impossible. When you consider construction as an industry in itself, there is no problem. There is nothing scandalous about giving priority to workers from the Quebec regions, even amongst themselves, and that they be given consideration before the others.
In a world where unemployment is king, there is nothing wrong with protecting the industry as such, all collective agreements protect recall lists and seniority lists. This also holds true in the construction sector.
I will turn the floor over to Mr. Mancini, who will answer the other part of your question.
Mr. John Mancini (Legal Counsel, Centrale des syndicats nationaux): Mr. McClelland, if I understood correctly, you would like to know if there could be a balance by paying replacement workers at the same wage rate. In my opinion, the answer is no.
Once you decide to employ replacement workers, you upset the balance that was initially sought in the Code, that we have definitely acquired in Quebec. Ultimately, will workers who are locked out or who are participating in a legal strike be eligible for unemployment insurance, union benefits and any other source of income during the course of the dispute?
If you look at the questions from this angle, how will employers react and what impact will this have on the duration of the disputes? The result would be that the disputes would go on and on. If an employer continue to produce and if the employees continue to receive an income ad vitam aeternam, a conflict would unavoidably arise at one point.
The objectives sought by a strike or a lockout date back to the days following the Second World War and its purpose is to create a balance between the parties. On the one hand, the workers no longer receive any income and must endure all of the problems associated with this whereas the employers are no longer able to produce and endure the consequences, which in turn motivates the parties to reach a final resolution. The logic behind all of the labour codes with which I am familiar is to compel the parties to negotiate.
When you allow one of the parties to use replacement workers, you no longer have the balance required to reach a collective agreement.
.1205
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Proud.
Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen.
Listening to the debate this morning on the replacement workers, I know that even if I wanted to, I wouldn't be able to change your mind, but I want to ask you this question regarding the proposed amendment in the code as we have it before us today.
If in fact the replacement worker issue goes forward as it is, with the new board having the powers they will have and hopefully the ability - which I'm quite sure they will have - to determine problems, do you not feel the serious situations that happened in the past...?
I could mention, for instance, the Yellowknife problem. Do you not really believe that could be overcome in this situation if this goes forward as it is, allowing replacement workers to be used? I'm not talking about allowing them to be there as a way of undermining the union or about having them take part, for instance, in a representational vote or anything like that; I'm talking about using them for a specific purpose, and not to undermine the union.
Do you not think this can be a fair balance to you people, to the management side and to all people involved?
[Translation]
Mr. Valois: As soon as replacement workers are used, there is no longer any balance. When we decide to deprive the employer of a labour force so that he will consider our demands and when we are replaced by someone else, the impact we are striving to achieve is lost. When the employer decides to lock us out to force us to accept his offer while, at the same time, hiring replacement workers, there is no longer any balance.
Bill C-66 talks about "unless it undermines the credibility of the union". It will be practically impossible for the union to prove that the replacement workers undermine the union's credibility. Since we will not be the only ones to appear before the Canada Board, the employer will prove that our demands are exaggerated given the state of the industry, the way that we negotiate, our conduct, etc. During this time, somebody else will be doing the work of the employees.
Consequently, the balance of power has just been eliminated and, when this happens, strikes will go on for a very long time, they will go on and on for additional months. In Quebec, since we don't have the right to hire replacement workers, scabs as they are called, employers have changed their attitude at the negotiating table.
In Quebec, many industries are now bonding together and forcing employers to really negotiate and to stop holding a sword of Damocles over our heads so that we will be forced to accept their offer.
Hiring replacement workers, or scabs during a labour dispute, is like pouring acid on cement. The cement will probably harden, but in the long run, the result of doing this will be felt and we will no longer be able to settle our collective agreements.
Mr. Sauvé: I would like to add that you are simply going to get the parties to steer away from the problem. Instead of trying to come up with a solution for new working conditions, the parties will wind up discussing legal issues. We know that unions can never win legal debates because the employer always has more means at his disposal than the unions do, and the impact of this is that workers' morale is undermined.
When workers are picketing, and this goes back a bit to the first question raised by Mr. McClelland, they lose income even if they have strike relief. The average income in Canada is approximately $550 per week; there is no strike relief fund that comes even close to this. Workers receive about $100 or $200, which means that they will have to do without certain things.
.1210
Financially speaking, the imbalance is terrible and, from the morale point of view, it is very difficult. As Mr. Tremblay said earlier, it is very hard on the workers to see scabs stealing their jobs, doing their job and, in addition, often doing the job poorly.
If you adopt laws that result in legal debates, we will not live long enough to resolve the problem. These problems will take an eternity to resolve and, the Board will have to turn to the courts in order to deal with labour relations. This must be avoided. This must be clearly understood.
We cannot accept essential services in the private sector without having a tight law forbidding the hiring of scabs, which would undermine all labour relations.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. You've made a very strong presentation. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you for your contribution. We have certainly noted all of the issues and points you have raised, and we look forward to utilizing the wisdom you have shared with us as we try to improve Bill C-66. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned until this afternoon.