40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 028
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Replacement Workers

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC):

Madam Speaker, I would like to address this motion.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code contains the fundamental principles in which labour relations in Canada are governed. It is very important legislation designed to provide stability to Canada's industrial relations.

Motion No. 294 calls for amendments to specific parts of part I in isolation from the other parts of the Canada Labour Code. Given the importance and the careful balance of the code and how that balance was arrived at, to take one portion in isolation of the other and try to amend it would upset the balance.

I ask hon. members of the House not to support this motion. I believe changes made to the code in this manner will disrupt the generally positive labour relations environment in our federal jurisdiction today.

At this time of Canadian and global economic instability, one has to question the appropriateness of making changes to the code that would favour one party over another. In addition, a ban on replacement workers could be negatively perceived by potential investors to Canada and disrupt the delicate balance of bargaining power that parties in the federal jurisdiction currently have. This could also lead to a more adversarial labour relations engagement on the basis which I discussed earlier with the member.

Canadians want their government to act responsibly and help protect the economy. We are helping to ensure that Canadian businesses and families have the security they need to weather the economic storm and come out of it stronger than ever.

There is an important point at stake here that we must consider. I believe the proposals contained in the motion before us today would weaken the foundations for positive labour relations in Canada.

Industrial relations legislation seeks to balance the competing interests of employers and employees as represented by their trade unions. The issue of replacement workers remains a contentious one. It is commonly accepted by labour relations experts that the employer's, particularly in a federal context, countervailing power to the union's right to strike is not so much the right to lock-out as their right to try to continue to operate during a work stoppage. We have a third party involved, and that is members of the public, whose interests need to be looked at as well.

It should be noted that, in the majority of cases, federal jurisdiction employers do not keep their operations functioning by employing external replacement workers. More often, management, supervisory personnel and other non-unionized personnel are assigned to take the place of striking workers.

The current provisions in the Canada Labour Code were introduced in 1999 after a valuable period of stakeholder consultation and a very extensive consultation of all the players. The question of banning replacement workers was a central issue at that time as well, and it was thoroughly examined.

What the stakeholder consultations determined was that there was simply no consensus on this issue. The decision at that time was to enact a provision that allowed for the hiring of replacement workers but banned their use for the purposes of breaking a union.

More consultations were also conducted recently with labour and business stakeholders on this very same issue. Just a few weeks ago, a study on the impact of work stoppage in the federally regulated private sector was made public and again stakeholders did not reach consensus on the issue of replacement workers.

The current provision with respect to replacement workers puts clear limits on the use of replacement workers during legal strikes or lockouts. It represents a practical compromise and a middle ground between unions that seek a complete ban on the use of replacement workers and employers that want personnel so they can continue operating.

In speaking to some of the stakeholders, it was obvious that there was a give and take in not only arriving at a decision on this issue, but on other issues as well that resulted in what we see as part I. To take out only one or two portions and deal with them in isolation to the whole picture will certainly upset the balance that the parties strived so hard to achieve.

It is our role to provide employers and employees with a labour relations environment in which they can manage their own relationships within the framework of the law. That is what the government is doing. It is assisting labour and management in the constructive settlement of disputes, and the evidence is convincing. Year after year, over 90% of the disputes in the federal jurisdiction are settled without a work stoppage, often without the assistance of federal government mediators.

It is also important to remember it is not just the federal jurisdiction that has decided not to impose a complete ban on replacement workers. There is considerable variability among provincial jurisdictions. Again, this is a reflection that the proposed approach that is contained in the motion is not as straightforward as the hon. member may suggest.

Only two of the provinces and territories in Canada have labour legislation that restricts the rights of employers to use replacement workers during a work stoppage. They are Quebec and British Columbia. Obviously the other provinces have determined that this part of the legislation is not in the best interests of the collective bargaining process or else they would have already implemented such provisions. Many of them have already considered this issue and have decided not to legislate a ban.

Labour program data further indicates that both Quebec and British Columbia continue to experience long work stoppages, notwithstanding any anti-replacement worker legislation. For the period 2006-08, the average duration of a work stoppage in Quebec was 52 days and in British Columbia 55.4 days, while in the federal jurisdiction, the average duration of a work stoppage was 49.2 days.

Also, a number of complaints concerning the use of replacement workers during work stoppages are filed each year in both Quebec and British Columbia. In 2007-08, 25 complaints were filed in each province respectively. Of the 25 complaints filed in Quebec, 10 were upheld by the provincial labour board. In British Columbia, five of the 25 complaints were upheld. This suggests that even if there were a legislative ban on replacement workers under the federal code, it would not resolve these controversial issues.

In addition, a number of independent university studies have concluded that prohibiting the use of replacement workers during work stoppages may be associated with more frequent and longer strikes. Other studies concluded that there is no evidence that a legislative ban had an impact either way on strike activity. Furthermore, a comparison of wage settlements in all jurisdictions, including those that do not have replacement worker legislation, indicates that there does not appear to be any link between the type of replacement worker provisions and the wage settlement for workers.

The issues are far greater than just the two that the member has raised. In order to resolve work stoppages, a different point of view must be taken. There must be a new way taken, but it is not the way that the motion would suggest.

When all of this information is taken into account, in the end there is no evidence to support that the position of prohibiting the use of replacement workers would lead to better labour relations or better economic conditions. That is just not so.

In conclusion, I believe the best approach to this issue is one that preserves a delicate balance which currently exists in part I of the Canada Labour Code. We cannot expect any benefit from this amendment. On the contrary, this motion risks creating instability in the labour relations climate at a time that the economy can least afford it and least needs it.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to consider the entire legislative spectrum in the broad interests of all Canadians. The motion does not address those responsibilities. I am asking members of the House not to support it.

TOP