Bill 3 faces opposition as invited experts call for withdrawal

The only two independent experts invited to speak to the parliamentary committee examining Bill 3, introduced by Minister Jean Boulet as part of a reform of the union system, delivered a very negative analysis of the bill on Thursday.

Michel Coutu, professor emeritus at the School of Industrial Relations at the University of Montreal, and Gilles Trudeau, professor emeritus at the Faculty of Law at the same university, were not kind to Minister Boulet’s project, particularly with regard to his desire to impose a two-tiered contribution system.

Bill 3 stipulates that a primary membership fee would cover all matters related to labour relations with the employer, and a voluntary membership fee would cover union activities not directly related to this function, such as challenging legislation in court, advertising, or participating in social movements. Funding for such peripheral activities would be subject to a majority vote.

No emergency or need

“It appears to us that, in each of these three situations, Bill 3, by its purpose and effects, creates substantial obstacles to the freedom of association guaranteed by section 3 of the Quebec Charter,” stated Coutu. “The objective pursued (by Bill 3) is neither urgent nor genuine,” he added, concluding that the bill’s constitutional validity is “at best questionable.”

“This distinction made by the bill between two types of contributions, those that are mandatory and the other optional, appears to us to be artificial, contrived and inappropriate,” added Trudeau.

Coutu went further, saying he had “enjoyed removing all the provisions that dealt with principal or optional contributions. If you remove all that, there’s not much left in this bill.”

A historic social role

Coutu reminded everyone that, according to the Labour Code, an employee association goes far beyond negotiating and administering a collective agreement. “It’s clear that from the beginning, the socio-economic dimension, the social movement, the advocacy for public policies that benefit employees” has been the focus of union activity.

“The anticipated result that we fear and that concerns us,” argued Trudeau, “is that in the long run, this will lead to a weakening of the Quebec labour movement, a possible weakening of the Quebec union presence.” The two lawyers asked the government to withdraw the bill.

Earlier in the day, the Alliance of Professional and Technical Staff in Health and Social Services (APTS) and the Autonomous Federation of Education added their voices to the chorus of union denunciations of Bill 3.

“This bill is not a reform, it is a regression in our eyes,” declared APTS President Robert Comeau, who called for its withdrawal, seeing it as “a frontal attack against fundamental rights.”

Trojan Horse

Moreover, with the possibility of imposing a voluntary contribution for actions peripheral to labour relations, “this project acts like a Trojan horse. It conceals a sneaky attack on the ability of trade unions to act.”

“History proves it, and has proven it: the eight-hour workday, parental leave, unemployment insurance, and pay equity are all advances that now benefit the entire population of Quebec and that resulted from union struggles.” He argued that if there had been an equivalent in 1975, “the unions would not have been able to finance the fight for pay equity since it was not covered by a collective agreement.”

For the 68,000 members of the APTS, 85 per cent of whom are women, he argued, such a bill places the government in a conflict of interest, since it allows it to interfere in union affairs as a legislator while also acting as an employer. Ancillary activities are directly linked to working conditions for public sector employees, he maintained, because if the government tables a budget that includes cuts in the health sector, its members will inevitably suffer the consequences.

Not being able to oppose a voluntary contribution without first obtaining a vote makes no sense and amounts to muzzling the union.

Two types of tax?

He also pushed the logic of separate contributions to the point of absurdity: “The government would never consider levying mandatory taxes to serve the main missions of the State and optional taxes for other functions or to finance projects like Northvolt, for example.”

The exchanges were nonetheless respectful with Minister Boulet, who took care to congratulate the APTS “for your mechanisms which I know relatively well. When you say solid and transparent mechanisms by and for the members, you are right.”

The president of the Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE), Mélanie Hubert, fully endorsed his remarks. The FAE, for example, is challenging the validity of Bill 21, which prohibits the wearing of religious symbols, something it could not have done if Bill 3 had been in effect at the start of the process. “The need for speed and flexibility to meet certain deadlines, for example, if there is a 30-day appeal period, is crucial. This bill will affect the executive committee’s ability to exercise its full powers by weakening not only financial planning and the coherence of its actions, but also by depriving it of the agility necessary to do so.”

She also denounces the conflict of interest between employers and legislators: “Issues related to wages, working conditions, and the education system are necessarily dependent on public finances. They depend directly on government budgetary choices. They fall under both labour relations and political decisions, and they cannot be separated.”

–This report by La Presse Canadienne was translated by CityNews