News

Legislation banning the use of replacement workers during strikes may soon become law in Canada. The bill, introduced by Bloc MP Richard Nadeau, could be tabled for a final vote in the Commons as early as March 21. If it becomes law, employers could face fines of up to $1,000-a-day if they used so-called "scab" workers during labour disruptions. The legislation has sparked howls of outrage from almost every business group in the country. They argue that it will cripple industry and threaten the survival of countless small businesses. In response, supporters in the labour community insist that such claims are unsubstantiated, pointing to British Columbia and Quebec, where similar legislation already exists.

The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois support Bill C-257. The Conservatives are largely against it. Liberal leader Stephane Dion says he opposes the use of replacement workers, but has promised his MPs a free vote on the matter. Unless a significant number of them line up against it, the legislation will pass.

Whether C-257 could directly impact small businesses remains an issue of considerable debate. The legislation applies only to federally regulated workplace. While that's an expansive category—encompassing banks, airports, railroads, trucking companies and mines, among other sectors—it does not include most small businesses, the vast majority of which are provincially regulated.

Garth Whyte, executive VP of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and Joel Davison Harden, senior researcher with the Canadian Labour Congress, will take your questions and debate this issue from 1-2 p.m. EST. Both have spent a considerable amount of time studying the legislation and its possible impacts. It's there, however, that their similiarities end.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question. Questions may be edited for length, clarity or relevance. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Noel Hulsman, Small Business Editor, globeandmail.com writes: Thanks for joining us today to discuss the pros and cons of this legislation.

Why is Bill C-257 being pursued now?:

Joel Davison Harden: First off, on behalf of the 3 million working Canadians we represent, thanks for the opportunity to offer our perspectives. We think the Bill reflects widely-held Canadian values, and fills a crucial gap in federal labour standards.

In our view, evidence and experience shows replacement workers are bad for working families, bad for business (of any size), and bad for Canada. In recent years, the rights of working families have been sacrificed by a few rogue employers—this is the main reason Bill C-257 enjoys widespread support, and is before the House of Commons.

Corporate names like "Telus", "Ekati", "Vidéotron", and "Secur" (among others) are now associated with awful disputes that tore communities apart. It's tough to bargain with employers who have no interest in genuine dialouge, and Canada's loose rules on replacement workers encourage this angry minority.

For most employers, of course, this isn't an issue. 97% of all collective bargaining in 2005 didn't result in a strike or lockout. Most employers know good labour relations are essential to economic success.

But, as any law enforcement official would explain, laws are written for the 2% of society that abuse them, and not the law-abiding majority. For that reason, in the interest of genuine balance, fairness, and the rights of working families, we support Bill C-257, and its tough rules on rogue employers.

With a clear prohibition on replacement workers, Canada can join other enlightened economies (like Quebec and BC) that believe labour rights and economic success aren't incompatible. It's time to ignore the self-serving minority that has frustrated progressive reform on this issue for decades. We think that Canada, as a champion for labour rights, should stand for something better.

Garth Whyte: Speaking on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) and its 105,000 small and medium size business members, of which a large number are federally regulated, we think Bill C-257 is bad legislation and will hurt small businesses and local communities across the country.

The reason this legislation is being pursued now is purely political. The labour movement has identified a vulnerable minority government in order to sneak through legislation that has been voted down several times in the past under a Liberal majority government.

In 1999, employer and labour representatives agreed to changes to Part I of the Canada Labour Code that prevents federally regulated companies from using replacement workers to undermine a union`s legitimate bargaining objectives. It took three years to reach this consensus and this proposed legislation was being rushed through Parliament in a few months. Why the rush? Politics rather than good policy.

What will happen if Bill C-257 becomes law?

Garth Whyte: 1) Many smaller federally regulated companies, such as airlines and trucking, are often the only link to remote communities. These companies that are essential to those communities could be shut down by a strike, and in a matter of weeks be forced out of business if unable to use replacement workers.

2) Small business across the country are dependent upon larger federally regulated businesses that provide the basic services and infrastructure that keep Canada`s economy humming. If they were not able to operate due to strike or lock out the impacts would spread far beyond that one operation to the broader economy, negatively affecting the viability of many Canadian businesses. Just look at the impacts of the current CN strike, imagine if replacement workers were not allowed!

3) This will hurt Canada`s competitiveness overall and negatively impact on international investment. The investment world is watching this Bill with interest. Bloomberg news, which reports to investors around the world, interviewed CFIB following our Committee presentation.

Joel Davison Harden: 1) From what I can tell, Mr. Whyte is addressing the right to strike (or lockout) under federal labour law, and not only the specific issue of replacement workers.

2) Does Mr. Whyte acknowledge that workers (under federal and provincial rules) have a right to strike, and employers also have a right to lockout?

3) If the answer to this question is "yes", then Mr. Whyte must make a convincing case that unions would use a ban on replacement workers for their own gain. He needs to cite specific examples in Quebec or BC -- jurisdictions with bans on replacement workers -- where this has happened.

4) The CN strike actually demonstrates the need for better federal labour standards. The employer (knowing full well it could expect back-to-work legislation) simply refused to bargain seriously, and demanded major concessions in key areas -- hardly a framework for balance and fairness.

Garth Whyte: Of course employees should have the right to strike and employers should have to right to lock-out. However, employees should also have the right to work. This legislation takes that right away deeming anyone who crosses the picket-line a replacement worker, tipping the scale significantly in favour of unions.

Pierre Lebel from Gatineau Canada writes: Bonjour. I would like to know why this legislation would tip the balance in favour of workers? As I understand it, when workers are going on strike they don't earn their regular wages (they might have access to strike pay) which is a great pressure to settle their dispute, unless you believe that workers can afford to be on strike for weeks and weeks without revenues. In exchange, employers can't use replacement workers, but can continue their business with the non-unionized staff already on their payroll. I see this as a fair balance. Do you agree or disagree?

Garth Whyte: That is one of the problems with this legislation. The fact is businesses would not be able to use non-unionized staff already on their payroll to continue running their business. The definition of replacement worker in Bill C-257 is so broad that employees, who disagree with their union and want to cross the picket-line to continue working in their job, would be deemed a replacement worker under this legislation. This proposed Bill even states that management is not allowed to continue operating their business (other than keeping the power on).

Joel Davison Harden: With due respect to Mr. Whyte, he is wrong in his interpretation of Bill C-257. Clause 2.2 of Bill C-257 clearly allows employers the right have managers (or supervising personnel) work during strikes or lockouts: "...an employer may use the services of the following persons during a strike or lockout: (a) a person employed as a manager, superintendent or foreman or as a representative of the employer in employer-employee relations; or (b) a person serving as a director or officer of a corporation, unless the person has been designated to serve in that capacity for the person's employer by the employees or by a certified association."

Garth Whyte: Joel you are wrong. I was sitting at the Committee table when this point was debated. There is much confusion over this section. After much debate, the Committee said that management can only continue running their business for 'conservation' purposes.

This is one of the problems with this bad legislation. It is only three pages long and important definitions and issues are not clearly dealt with.

Joel Davison Harden: Mr. Whyte, here we will agree to disagree.

Bill C-257 is modeled on the Quebec example, where management's right to work is upheld.

I've sat through all the Committee hearings on this Bill, obtained a legal opinion on this matter, and have text here in my hands. Clause 2.2 of the Bill clearly outlines dictates the right of management personnel to work during strikes and lockouts.

Also: the union movement operates in a participatory democratic fashion. That means workers vote at regular meetings to decide whether to strike, and abide by majority decisions.

If things work differently for business lobbyists, we'll chalk this up to an issue of cultural differences.

Hugh Mackenzie from Westville, Canada writes: if this legislation is passed it should cut down considerably on days lost to strikes. the employers will have to re-assess their starve them out mentality. this will reduce violence on the picket lines to near zero, i am speaking from experience.

Garth Whyte: Several recent studies by the federal government and academic experts have found that in jurisdictions (BC and Quebec) with legislation banning replacement workers:

1) Strikes are of a longer duration. Rather than shorter strikes, as advocated by labour groups as one of the benefits of banning replacement workers, research reveals that strikes, on average, are longer, especially in Quebec.

2) Strikes are more frequent in those jurisdictions with a replacement worker ban.

Joel Davison Harden: The research Mr. Whyte is referring to on replacement workers comes from three sources, all of which are questionable.

1) The Fraser Institute, an extreme right-wing think tank, which has an established anti-union pedigree.

2) A nine-page, back-of-the-envelope study from the Labour Canada released on the day Bill C-257 passed through second reading.

When the latter document came before a parliamentary committee, it was almost laughed out of the room.

The research on this issue (from the federal overnment's own data) is clear: the federal sector, while comprising about 7% of all Canadian workers, has a huge degree of labour disruptions. Even Jack Mintz from the CD Howe Institute says as much.

S.K. from Toronto Canada writes: When we had this type of legislation in Ontario, employers bargained seriously and there was more labour peace. Why shouldn't the same thing occur nationally?

Garth Whyte: Two points:

1) Many would argue that it was bad legislation and that is why it was repealed in Ontario. Since then there has not been an increase in the frequency or duration of strikes in Ontario and there has been labour peace.

2) There is a big difference between a provincially regulated versus a federally regulated company. Federally regulated companies provide infrastructure and services that impact on the entire country. Canadians depend on those important services. One of the problems with this proposed legislation is that essential services are not clearly defined. A labour dispute at this level can shut down the country.

Joel Davison Harden: Before talking about "labour peace" in Ontario, Mr. Whyte needs to look at the federal government's own numbers.

Between 1992-2006, Ontario lost over 12 million work days due to strikes and lockouts, the most by far in all of Canada.

On a different note, as someone raised in a small business, CFIB-voting member family, I'm curious as to why unions are the object of such scorn by CFIB leaders.

Bill C-257 would protect the incomes of hard-working Canadians from rogue employers.

Is Mr. Whyte opposed to people making decent, union wages, and then using these wages to patronize small businesses?

Garth Whyte Joel, as someone with family members who own a small business, you know the importance of small businesses to their community and you know that employees are very loyal to those small businesses. In fact, the number one choice of Canadians is to work in or own a small business. That is why the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses, that make up 45% of the GDP and almost 60% of total employment, are not unionized.

This legislation is a perfect example of how the small business sector gets hurt by squabbles between big business and big unions. As I said earlier, this legislation could be devastating to small business and their employees. It is clear to us that the impact of this Bill on our sector was not considered when it was drafted.

It is true that CFIB and our members are angry about the tactics the unions used to quickly sneak this Bill through Parliament. At one point the Committee was only going to have two days of hearings to quickly review this Bill. If this issue is of such importance why not have full debate to discuss all the impacts? The employer community worked alongside union representatives for three years to reach a consensus solution to deal with this contentious issue.

Noel Hulsman writes: Garth and Joel, thank you for your insights today. It will be interesting to see how the legislation unfolds. Any closing comments?

Joel Davison Harden: Thanks again for the opportunity to present the CLC's views. We think Bill C-257 makes sense. We think it offers balance and fairness, and protects the rights of working families. However, if Bill C-257 is defeated at Third Reading, it will mark the tenth consecutive time big business has stalled progressive reform in federal labour law.

Working people in this country, of course, are hoping for a different outcome. They're looking for leadership in Ottawa to stop the damage caused by rogue federally-regulated employers. At the end of the day, when working people do well, business does well, and we have a better country.

Garth Whyte: CFIB strongly believes that this legislation is flawed and, if passed will make Canada less competitive and less attractive for new investment. Furthermore, Bill C-257 is not necessary considering the strength of Canada`s labour market and the relatively peaceful state of federal labour relations since 1999. We have been urging MPs to vote against Bill C-257. Canada`s small and medium-sized businesses will be paying close attention to how MPs vote on Bill C-257 to ensure that they put good policy ahead of politics.

Noel Hulsman writes: Thanks again.