HRPD Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 26, 1998

• 0902

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Let us come to order.

If I may, with the indulgence of the committee members...the steering committee has just met to deal with the budget for the new year. Mr. Nault wants to make a motion that the committee approve the budget as approved by steering committee, and I'll call the question on that.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: The second motion was that we re-engage the same group of consultants we had in the previous.... Moved by Mr. Nault.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Mr. Martin, just for your information, it's a courtesy rather than a requirement, but at the end of the hearing process, which will be at the end of next week, we give members about a week and a half, and then if you have amendments you'd like to propose, we ask that you get them to the clerk so we can prepare an amendment package for clause-by-clause, which will begin on April 21. We realize that you think this is such a good piece of legislation that you may not have any amendments, but nonetheless, we give you this opportunity.

Good morning and welcome. I think Buzz said this was déjà vu all over again. I don't know, Nancy, if you were here the last time on this bill, but you know the process. Do you want to get started, and hopefully we'll have some time for questions.

Ms. Nancy Riche (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you very much.

With me is Murray Randall, who is currently executive assistant to the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bob White.

Have I been here before...? Just before the Tories got defeated in 1993, I came in to present some brief, and the guy at the front asked me, “Which room, which committee?” I said, “It makes no difference. Send me anywhere; I'm against it.”

On this one, I feel like we're actually writing an international convention; we've been at it so long. But hopefully this is it.

• 0905

I have a very brief opening statement. I understand we have only half an hour, and some of the committee members would want to engage in some discussion. I will read that; it's not five minutes long.

The Canadian Labour Congress again welcomes the opportunity to appear before the standing committee on the subject of Bill C-19. We have prepared for your consideration a submission on this bill, and I think that's been distributed. It's not much different from the last one presented. This submission addresses some core issues for us—the Canada Labour Relations Board, replacement workers, certification procedures, and successor rights—other proposed sections that we support; others that cause us concern; and finally, two areas: the repeal of section 108.1, which is a vote on the employer's offer; and repeal of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the PSSRA.

The submission reflects the views of CLC-affiliated unions whose activities and membership are, in whole or in part, affected by part I of the code. Some of these unions have either appeared or will be appearing before the committee. My remarks this morning will be brief and general.

Bill C-19 and its predecessor, Bill C-66, is the product of a lengthy process of consultation and compromise that began in late 1994. This process has involved the government, an independent task force, and the workplace parties, primarily through the CLC and FETCO. Both the CLC and FETCO have stated publicly that they can support the end result of this process, while at the same time acknowledging that the bill does not, in all respects, represent their respective positions.

It is interesting to note that when Bill C-19 was introduced in November 1997, one of the harshest critics of Bill C-66, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, finally recognized the spirit of compromise that underlies the bill by adding its voice of support. This was, of course, after the former bill had been amended in some areas, especially on the use of replacement workers and communication with off-site workers.

In terms of overall context, I believe three things are worth mentioning with respect to Bill C-19. The first is the preamble to part I of the Canada Labour Code, which bears repeating. Very few people actually ever sit down and read the preamble of anything, so I think it's important to repeat this for the members of the committee:

WHEREAS there is a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes;

AND WHEREAS Canadian workers, trade unions and employers recognize and support freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the bases of effective industrial relations for the determination of good working conditions and sound labour-management relations;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada has ratified Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize and has assumed international reporting responsibilities in this regard;

AND WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all.

We will note that there has been no recommended amendment to the preamble. The CLC believes that Bill C-19 is consistent with that preamble.

The second—and it's timely in this year—is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 50th anniversary of which will be celebrated on December 10 of this year, and actually it's also the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87, which suggests that immediately after the world approved a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the first conventions to be signed was the right to free collective bargaining and the freedom of association.

But article 23.4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests. The CLC believes Bill C-19 is consistent with that statement of principle.

Lastly, we refer to the perspective of the independent chair of the task force referred to earlier, Andrew Sims, a well-respected neutral in labour management relations, who launched the task force with the following three observations:

(1) the existing Canada Labour Code (Part I) basically continues to serve its constituencies well;

(2) emphasizing stability, pendulum-like changes to the Code are neither necessary nor desirable; and

(3) consensus between the parties is the best basis for decision-making on legislative change.

The CLC believes Bill C-19 is consistent with these observations.

• 0910

In summary, the CLC supports Bill C-19 and recommends its passage into law. If we have time—I know I'm speaking really fast for me, and I'm from Newfoundland—we may want to talk about section 107. I know the CAW raised it and we certainly support their position on it. But I think it's really worth while for the committee to read a section in this act, quite honestly, that could make the entire act null and void.

It has such incredible powers that the minister can do anything. I'm not sure the minister would, by the way, but reading that over again this morning, it says “the minister”—and it refers to him as “he”. So in addition to all the wonderful work you're doing, the committee might want to make sure when the bill is typed and put together for proclamation that we are gender sensitive.

The Chairman: There's an amendment that might have some hope.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Good point.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Yes, because I got support from the government side.

The Chairman: I want you to note that.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): There's a fair number of women on this side.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. That was also very efficiently done. Of course consensus always is, is it not?

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Good morning. Thank you for your presentation. I notice in your presentation you spoke several times about freedoms and making free decisions. I wonder if you consider the fact that this bill will require a lawyer to turn over names and addresses of off-site workers, without their consent, to union organizers to be a violation of privacy or freedoms.

Ms. Nancy Riche: First of all, the bill does not require the employer to turn over the names. The bill states that the board can make the decision to turn over the names, so nowhere in the bill does it say the employer must turn over names.

Second, what this bill is dealing with, as I understand it, and what we would support is the reality of the new workplace. In fact that's one of the reasons why we included those rights in this particular submission.

Every worker now in the country has the right to join a union in his or her workplace. Unfortunately, the history around it, somehow or other, is that joining a union is a subversive activity and the reason it's done quietly and privately is because our experience is that once the employer has wind of the fact that employees are joining a union, all sorts of intimidation tactics are put into place.

We still have all these workers at the worksite and the ability of the union to see them. Now that we're moving to home working in a big way—so much so that the ILO convention has just been written on home work—where we have teleworking and where we still have textile workers, it doesn't allow those workers the rights we talked about under the preamble of the code or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How do we accommodate that?

In the beginning, of course, you can imagine the discussion was that their names should be provided by the employer without any discussion. The slight change in Bill C-19 from Bill C-66 gives the board the power to decide whether or not the names can be turned over.

If it's a question of consent, obviously that would not serve the purpose of our traditional way of organizing. It's unfortunate that joining a union would not be just considered a purely legitimate exercise—the employer wouldn't interfere and it would be allowed to happen. Then we wouldn't be talking about this in the article in the way we are. That's our history. That's how we have to do it, and this evens the power balance between unions and the employer, from the perspective of organizing.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I respectfully disagree with your stance. Basically you're saying you also disagree with the stance the privacy commissioner has taken, that this is, in his opinion, an infringement on privacy.

So you're saying that although the employer doesn't exactly hand over the list of names and addresses to the union organizer, the board can get it from the employer and hand it over. So that's basically like saying that because you signed up for a subscription to a certain magazine, now that magazine has the authority to hand out your name and address to all kinds of telemarketers. I think there's a certain parallel to be drawn there.

• 0915

I agree with the privacy commissioner that this is an infringement on privacy. What's missing here is the consent of the individual employee, who is someone I'm sure your group has fought for the rights of in the past.

Ms. Nancy Riche: There are two points here. Somehow, your response suggests that the employee is going to do something that he or she doesn't want without their consent. It's like they're going to be coerced.

At the end of the day, it's the employee who decides whether or not he or she wants to sign a card to join the union. This is a voluntary act. So we're not doing anything except having the right to approach the person to inquire whether or not they want to join a union.

To suggest that union organizing and giving people the legitimate right to belong to unions can somehow be compared to a telemarketer giving out magazine subscriptions is, in my mind, to really diminish the right of a person to joint a union, and, in fact, the legitimacy of trade unions themselves. Besides that, I think they do have the right to give your name to every telemarketer. I get all the phone calls. Somebody is getting my name.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, that's just the point. You obviously don't approve of that. If you had freely given your name to some of these people so that they could solicit something from you—

Ms. Nancy Riche: I don't disapprove.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, you obviously do.

Ms. Nancy Riche: No. I just said the analogy was wrong. Listen, I'm the guy who sits on a phone for 45 hours to talk to a worker who has some lousy job of phoning up and surveying people. I've answered so many questionnaires on cosmetics that I don't use. I have respect that this person has a job making a lousy $6 or $7 an hour, and that's the only job they can get. No, I'm fine with this. I take my flyers.

Mr. Dale Johnston: We're getting a little bit sidetracked here.

Ms. Nancy Riche: You made the analogy.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, thank God I don't have to fill out surveys about cosmetics anyway.

In fact, in my opinion, what's missing from this legislation—I'll let it go at this—is the consent of a person to give out the personal information about their home telephone number, address, and so forth.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm not sure yet. We don't know how the board would rule in terms of giving out lists. It says the board can, and we are leaving a lot to the board, in fact, more so than in Bill C-66, in allowing the board to make the call.

I'm not suggesting that this is what they should do, but I'm not sure that the board wouldn't want to post the fact that they met with the union or something and they were going to put the names out. The consent will come whether or not.... All that person has to say when they're called is what I did in the survey: no, I don't want to talk to you. The consent is in signing the card. The individual person has the absolute right to decide whether or not he or she wants to sign a union card.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, that's good. I think they should also have the absolute right as to whether or not they should be releasing their names and addresses.

Ms. Nancy Riche: What's your alternative? I'm sure you agree that unions have a legitimate right to exist in this country and to organize people into unions. What's your alternative for the increasing number of people whose new workplace now is the home, the living room? How do they get to exercise the right? What's your alternative? This is assuming you believe that unions have a right to exist in this country.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, their alternative, of course, would be to be asked whether or not they would like their personal information given out. This is just in the same way as if they were asked whether they cared to join union A, to which they say, no, they don't want to. It's like your analogy with the surveys. They should have the same kind of right of refusal about giving out their personal address and so forth.

• 0920

Ms. Nancy Riche: At the risk of being repetitious, our experience and the history in this country is that immediately after the employer knows there's an organizing drive going on, we see the intimidation tactics. The employer will do everything not to have a union.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I didn't want to get into this, but why must you assume that it's only the employer who uses intimidation tactics? The union will do absolutely everything they can to make sure they do get people signed up, and if they don't get enough people signed up they can go to the board and try to make a case to have automatic certification. So I take a certain amount of exception to your continually referring to the strong-arm tactics of the employer.

Ms. Nancy Riche: If we had lots of time you could give me examples of where the union intimidated and I could stay here for two hours and give you examples of where the employer intimidated. I speak from experience and the history. The intimidating tactics we've seen around union-organizing drives in this country have been clearly by the employer.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Ms. Riche, you're absolutely right. We could debate that for a long time.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Yes, and I'd win.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: In an attempt to avoid that particular debate, let me move on to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

One of the things that's come up in some of the representations made to the committee is that there have been people saying that they didn't have an adequate opportunity for consultation and for input. This is from employer groups. Given the history you've had with the development of these amendments, do you feel in your mind that both parties are satisfied they had adequate opportunity to have input?

Ms. Nancy Riche: The government set up a consultative committee to Sims that met together. I'm trying to think of the size of the committee. FETCO, which of course is representing the federal employers and the employers in federal jurisdiction, and the Canadian Labour Congress and our affiliates with members in the federal jurisdiction started meeting in the fall of 1995 up until the time that the Sims report was launched.

The atmosphere of consultation on this one was probably the best that I've seen around the government in terms of client consultation. We, the employers and the union, clearly had some major disagreements at the table, but we also were of a certain level of professionalism whereby we didn't waste time on the ones that we were not going to solve. If I thought for a minute I could have got FETCO to actually agree to anti-scab legislation, we'd still be meeting. But there wasn't a hope in hell, so I think we spent all of about 30 minutes on anti-scab legislation and moved on. That was chaired by Mike McDermott of the labour department.

We had a tripartite process going on for a number of months. The spokesperson for FETCO at the time was Don Brazier. Don Brazier and I actually met with Minister Gagliano and said, look, this is not easy. We're not crazy about it on either side, but we agree that this is the best we can do. We, FETCO as an organization and CLC as an organization, are ready to support it—

Following that, Minister Gagliano then went out around the country and had more round-table discussions. Following that we went to the House, we went to the committee—we got as far as the Senate, didn't we?—when the bill disappeared. Now we're starting all over again. If there's any more consultation....

Mr. Pat Martin: Another issue that's come up—and I'd like you to give a bit of your feelings on this—is that there have been groups that are saying there should be a mandatory vote even in a situation where 80% of the cards have been signed or a clear majority, more or less along the American model, I guess. Could you elaborate a little bit on how you would view this as having an impact on the organizing drive or the gap in between when the cards are submitted and a vote, what can occur during that timeframe?

Ms. Nancy Riche: This comes down to respect for the individual who actually signs the card. My position, unlike the previous member's, is that unions do not intimidate or coerce people to sign cards. And once a person has actually signed a card.... I mean, that is a pretty heavy-duty decision in the current context and the reputation of trade unions. We're still just above political parties. So we're not very high on the legitimacy scale out there.

• 0925

It's really important that when people actually make that individual decision to sign a card, we should have some respect for their decision. In addition to that, the code calls for their having to pay $5 as well, which we disagree with.

For anything over 50%, which of course is an understood majority—we do have some debate about that in this country, but we understand that 50% plus one is a majority—it comes down to the respect for those who did that. To suggest that there should be an automatic vote on every certification request is to suggest that somehow or another those workers who have signed a card either didn't know what they were doing or didn't have the right to make that decision on their own. I think it does speak to respect. We certainly don't mind a vote at a low percentage. In fact, we'd be surprised at a union that would go for certification with 35% of the cards. It doesn't make sense.

Once you go over 50%, when people question what's going on—and you know the employer has the right to question every card—then the board still has the discretion to call a vote. So the automatic vote we disagree with.

Again, from the fundamental human rights of the person who has made the decisions, who has given somebody $5 and signed a card to say “I want to join a union”, to go for the automatic vote is to suggest that somehow or another they don't know what they're talking about.

Mr. Pat Martin: The labour lawyers organization that spoke to us yesterday raised an issue that we had some problem with as well. The onus is on the union now to demonstrate that there's been unfair labour practices or interference to the point where you couldn't determine the wishes of a vote so automatic certification can take place, given Wal-Mart, etc.

With regard to the automatic certification, if there have been enough unfair labour practices to the point where you couldn't hold a vote because you wouldn't be able to determine the true wishes of the employees because of intimidation, they have a recommendation that would reverse the onus somewhat, the burden of proof. The change between Bill C-66 and Bill C-19 was that they beefed up the fact that the union should have to demonstrate that these unfair labour practices were warranted on that certain case.

Ms. Nancy Riche: That's in a strike situation, though.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's my understanding. The point the labour lawyers were raising is that the burden of proof shouldn't fall solely on the labour side.

What I'm asking you to do is to comment a little bit on the automatic certification aspect when there's been interference during an organizing drive.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I understand that people have some problems with this in theory. Technically speaking, because of intimidation by the employer or proven unfair labour practice by the employer, the board can get automatic certification. Then when the vote is revealed it's learned that in fact there's a big majority against joining the union. If you say that on its surface, on its face, it sounds as if there's something really bizarre happening with the board, so we have to put that in context.

First of all, we have to have some respect for a labour relations board. Once we set up a labour relations board we have to have some respect for the right to do something. If a labour board actually gives automatic certification in a place where they assume, had the employer had not participated, not engaged in unfair labour practices, there would have been support for the union—and that's a judgment call—then we have to think about why the board would make that decision.

I want to talk about Wal-Mart for a minute and what happened in that organizing drive. Wal-Mart has a captive audience, rah-rah, praise the Lord meeting every morning to get their employees, their associates, revved up to sell. It's a marketing plan they have and it may work.

They used that during the organizing drive in Windsor. They in fact had people on staff handing out flyers against the union at the front door. They had people on staff who would have been members of the union speak at these captive audience meetings. And they are a captive audience since the employees have to show up and speak at these meetings.

• 0930

Your quick response may be that these were people who were opposed to the union, but I would suggest they were people who wanted to keep their jobs. I would suggest that Wal-Mart intimidated these folks to the point—and not even subtly. They went around the store—and this was proven, and that's why they got certification—and said if you join the union we'll close the shop and we'll move. If you join the union we'll do this. If you join the union you lose your job.

If we want to support that kind of tactic, or we think that's freedom of the employer, then we have some real problems in this country. The only recourse, when the employer intimidates to that level and terrifies people, is for the board to say “We have to assume that if you hadn't done this, reasonable people would have voted in the majority to join the union.” It's not the way we want to get certification, it's not the way we want to organize people, but we need some place where the employer cannot get away with this.

What other penalty could there be on that employer for treating people like that, for intimidating and for threatening? It's a shame that in the evolution of labour organizing, in the right to join unions, that I've used the word “penalty”, because for workers it's not a penalty to be a union member. Look at the statistics and see how well unionized workers are doing in this country as compared to non-unionized, so it's hardly a penalty to have people join a union.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Riche.

Mr. Nault, one of your efficient questions, please.

Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to piggyback two on to one, if I can.

It's very unusual, and people are having difficulty getting used to the fact that in the federal jurisdiction we get consensus before we move on the Canada Labour Code. Because of that, we have a compromise between labour and management in front of us, so everyone who comes to us is against the bill in some form. So we're having a tough time. We're going to hear 60 witnesses or so, and they're all going to come and say, “Yes, I agreed to it, but here's what I would prefer you do if you guys are dumb enough to change the whole emphasis of the bill and make some amendments.”

Having said that, I think it's important to be on the record that in essence that's what people prefer. The CLC has asked for some other changes, such as successor rights. Is that a suggestion that as soon as we're done this the government should start round two of those consultations, or are they already ongoing? Are we going to have to look at this again?

Ms. Nancy Riche: They're not ongoing. We're not in any consultation on part I. In fact, we're getting to do a consultation on part III now.

I wouldn't be worried about us maybe getting into changes. It took 20 years to make amendments to this one, so I'm not expecting a phone call from Mike McDermott next week saying let's talk about amendments to part I.

Part of what you're hearing from the parties, compromises...some people call it a lose-lose situation. I think we knew where we were. If we could write the non-replacement workers article, I would have an article in there that would make my honourable friend up here apoplectic, it would be so tough. We didn't get that, but what we're saying—our last line is that we want this passed. FETCO is going to say we want this passed, but that doesn't mean we won't continue to express our views or lobby in whatever capacity for other changes.

We've been asking for a long time that the PSSRA come under the Canada Labour Code, as will the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We would like stronger successor rights, and the bill says that you will revisit it. We only have it in some places, such as the security guards at the airport, but we will look at other areas in the future. When and if the bill gets passed, obviously we'll be going back, as per the bill, and talking about changing those. That's what we do, but we do hope for passage of this one as it is.

Mr. Robert Nault: I'm very supportive of that whole argument. I know it's difficult for people to think that a compromise is a lose-lose, but keeping a balance in labour relations in this country.... As you will notice in other provinces, when it's not balanced a lot more problems can result, and that's whether you go to the extreme right or to the extreme left.

Ms. Nancy Riche: We haven't experienced an extreme left shift in labour relations. We'll wait and see when it happens.

Mr. Robert Nault: You're waiting to see how that goes, then.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Maybe in Nova Scotia in a few months.

• 0935

Mr. Robert Nault: Maybe. We're looking forward to that.

Based on this whole issue of those of us who happen to be in the political middle of everything, I'm very interested in balance. We have made some significant changes to the board itself. The board has some very important work ahead of it. As you mention in your brief, clause 42 and this whole issue of off-site workers will have to be dealt with by the new board.

Are you comfortable with the new make-up of the board? It's different. As we all know, 98% of the time they don't go before the board and things work fairly smoothly between the negotiating parties. It's that small percentage of the time that you need a successful board. What are your views on the board make-up?

Ms. Nancy Riche: We like the representational board. We haven't had one. It's rather surprising that we would not have had a representational board. That's not to say the appointments...there hasn't been an effort to try to balance. We'd say So-and-so got appointed, he wasn't bad in his decisions for labour. The government never appointed all pro-management people to the board, but this makes it transparent and clear.

We would have preferred that the labour movement make the labour appointments. We would have nominated them and the minister would have supported it—I'm sure FETCO would have preferred to nominate their side's people—and then some consultation on the neutrals. That was our position, but we did not get it at the end of the day.

We assume, and we're depending on good faith, that with any labour nominations there would be some consultation and we would submit names. When Minister Axworthy was there and we were actually looking at an appointment he wanted, his suggestion was—he was the one who actually started this non-replacement worker discussion—that he would take from the list we presented. So if we presented three names that we would be happy with, they would take it. But it's not even as tight as that.

We assume there will be consultation. We're going to be terribly disappointed if all the neutrals get appointed without any consultation. That's already happened and that's too bad. With respect to the process that we've undergone, I think it does behove the minister to have some consultation with the trade union movement and the employers' organizations. I think that's only fair. We call it a representational body, so it doesn't make sense for the minister to pick our representatives without any consultation.

That's not making an amendment to the bill. We would like to, but we're not going to try. But we would like the committee to suggest that the minister consult the stakeholders.

Mr. Robert Nault: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you. I note that we've gone way over time. It's a tribute to your eloquence, Ms. Riche.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the time.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Get this one through, will you? I don't want to come back here any more.

The Chairman: I find the process so interesting. We may want to continue to work on it.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Just get on with it.

• 0940

The Chairman: Let us get on with this particular presentation.

For the information of committee members, the brief that has been presented by CSN is entirely in French, which is quite consistent with the standing orders of the committee. It has been an issue from the other side at another time, but this is very appropriate. It will be translated and circulated to all members as soon as the table has had the opportunity to do so. Translation is provided, as always.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point as well.

The last time we had one in English, one particular party made quite a fuss. Of course this side will make no fuss about the fact that this is only in French, but I want to make it clear that the next time we get one only in English, it will be reciprocal. Quite a stink was made last month or two weeks ago about this whole process. As I mentioned to the committee at that time, these situations do occur in the reverse, and here's the first opportunity to bring it up. So I just want to make sure it's on the record that we are not opposed to this happening on occasion.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault. Not only are we not opposed to it, but it's covered in our standing orders, which allow it to happen. The table will undertake to translate it immediately and circulate it to all members.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): I do not wish to bring about a debate, but I believe that a distinction must be made between government organizations appearing before us and the documents of which are supplied in one language only, and private organizations. Here in this committee, several witnesses have tabled reports in English only and I did not make a fuss about it. You must not be too ticklish.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau, rather than let this debate go on—I'm sorry, gentlemen, that it occurs here, but it's an interesting example of what does occur—you're absolutely right, and that's what occurred the other day. Private citizens came before the committee with a brief in one of the two official languages, which they are entitled to do, as these gentlemen are entitled to do, but two members of your party stood up and stormed out of the room and slammed the door.

An hon. member: They almost broke the door.

The Chairman: It was exactly this situation. We think what's going on here is absolutely appropriate, and we have a standing order that covers it, but please take this message back. Thank you.

Gentlemen, this is not for you—

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Since I have been a member here, several witnesses have appeared before us with documents drafted in English only and I did not make any fuss about it at all. I believe that the people on the opposite side could perhaps be more reasonable.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau, absolutely.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: We like you. We want you here all the time. Don't let anybody—

The Chairman: Let us hope it is a compromise, as the bill is a compromise.

Mr. Paquette, none of this will interfere with your time. You have a half an hour. If you could take about ten minutes to introduce the topics you wish to discuss, members will have an opportunity to question you.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Secretary General, Confederation of National Trade Unions): I would first of all like to thank the committee for meeting with us today.

The Confederation of National Trade Unions (CNTU) comprises 235,000 members, mainly in Quebec, spread over 2,200 locals in all economic sectors.

I would like to underline that CNTU also has some 6,000 members subject to federal labour legislation, who work mainly in communications, the inter-provincial transportation of passengers and freight and the manufacturing and the agro-food manufacturing sectors, including mills.

I would like, at the outset, to tell committee members that we cannot hide our disappointment over the timid nature of Bill C-19, especially as it concerns the use of scabs during labour disputes and the absence of stronger provisions for bargaining and for the transfer of rights and obligations during the sale, rental, transfer and other types of disposition of a business.

• 0945

With regard to the various adjustments to the Canada Labour Code respecting collective bargaining, those dealing with the notice of bargaining and the right to strike, CNTU believes that the bargaining structure must be amended.

As we stated before the Sims Task Force that carried out a steady of Bill C-19:

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.

This request was not taken into account in Bill C-19. Furthermore, the bill adds two legal conditions for the exercise of the right to strike, which is quite unacceptable.

First, the right to strike will now be subject to the additional condition that the Board has ruled on a party's request or the Minister's order to maintain essential services.

Second, a union must provide 72-hour notice and more importantly, hold a secret ballot under rules that could easily result in the vote being challenged. A mechanism for ruling the vote null and void is even provided for and is accessible to every member of the bargaining unit who is not satisfied.

We would remind you that it is the practice of our affiliated unions to hold secret ballots, but no member may ever contest a vote if it would prevent a legal strike from being held, contrary to what is stated in the new 87.3(4).

Conciliation: CNTU stated before the Sims Task Force:

...that the use of conciliation should be an optional stage. At all stages of the negotiations, however, either of the parties may ask the Minister to name a conciliator to assist the parties. Upon request, the Minister should name that person as soon as possible. The Minister may also require a report from the conciliator at every stage of the negotiations.

Bill C-19 does not follow this approach. We therefore ask you to amend clauses 71 and following of the Canada Labour Code to make the use of conciliation optional.

Secret ballot on final management offers: Before the Sims Task Force, CNTU expressed its opposition to the Minister being able, at his discretion, to order a secret ballot vote on final management offers. This provision in the Code must be repealed. We believe that this authority conferred on the Minister is excessive and an insult to unions that have been democratically elected by the workers.

Bill C-19 retains section 108.1, and we repeat our request that this provision be repealed.

With regard to maintaining working conditions, CNTU repeats its request that a specific provision be included in the Canada Labour Code to enable parties to roll over their working conditions under a collective agreement and that working conditions provided for 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 contain a provision similar to section 59 of the Quebec Labour Code.

The Canada Labour Relations Board has ruled that provisions in collective agreements maintaining working conditions until the collective agreement has been renewed are illegal because the Code is silent on this issue. There is the Paccar case in British Columbia that went before the Supreme Court and that confirmed this. Bill C-19 must therefore be amended so as to include a similar provision.

Regarding technological change, Bill C-19 does not amend the Canada Labour Code provisions on technological change in any significant way. We are asking that technological change be dealt with through negotiated agreements, with a right to strike in case of disagreement, and that the definition of "technological change" be broad enough to include all types of modern technology.

With regard to the reinstatement of workers after a dispute, 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 return to this point a little bit later in our presentation.

On the matter of certification where unfair labour practices arise, CNTU supports section 99.1, which permits the Board to certify, despite a lack of evidence of support by a majority of employees in the unit if the employer has failed to comply with the prohibition on unfair labour practices in circumstances in which 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. We are therefore in agreement with this clause.

• 0950

On the matter of the transfer of rights and obligations, the Canada Labour Code must guarantee the transfer of rights and obligations in all cases where a business or part thereof is continued by another employer. It must in fact ensure that the certification and the agreement are transferred wherever there is a transfer of operations, concession or sub-contracting, regardless of the nature of the transaction and whether or not there is a legal relationship between the former employer bound by the certification and the agreement and a new employer.

It must be understood that requiring a legal relationship between former and new employers allows room for a host of legal manoeuvres such as the creation of new corporations or legal entities, etc.

Moving now to the transfer of jurisdiction, we approve of the amendment contained in Bill-19 concerning 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 with impunity during labour disputes. In our view, using strikebreakers during a dispute is a denial of the hard-won legal rights to negotiate and to strike.

The absence of antiscab provisions is a fundamental flaw which will result in longer labour disputes and an imbalance that will hinder free bargaining. Hiring scabs during a labour dispute is a source of frustration and violence. The presence of replacement workers escorted by private security agencies, or even police forces paid with our taxes, is shocking, provocative and unacceptable for employees who have built the reputation of a company or an institution.

The case of the ADM-Ogilvie's workers is a recent example of the need for antiscab provisions. During that dispute, which lasted 16 months, from June 1994 to September 1995, these workers and their families suffered from the absence of antiscab provisions. While the employer continued production with impunity, the workers, stripped of their dignity and pride in their work, had to spend the savings they had accumulated over the years to provide for themselves and their families and to avoid losing their homes.

We can only lament the fact that the right to strike, which is required to maintain the balance contemplated in the Canada Labour Code, is still, in 1998, not supported by provisions ensuring it is fully respected. The effects of violent labour disputes and the problems caused by the presence of scabs once work stoppages are over are well-known. One need only think back to the mining disputes in the Northwest Territories.

It should be noted that there was no consensus in Quebec when the antiscab provisions were introduced. Employers, chambers of commerce and the Quebec Liberal Party were strongly opposed to them on the grounds that antiscab legislation would increase the number of labour disputes and make them last longer because it would give the unions more power. However, the opposite is true and there have since been fewer and generally shorter disputes than was previously the case.

This legislation was passed during the Parti québécois government's first mandate and was not repealed until the last Liberal government, which was in power for nine years. The Quebec Liberal Party left the act intact, even though one of its own reports, the Scowen Report, recommended it be removed from the statute books. There is therefore at present an act that has gained consensus, even on the part of management.

I would remind you that the court had allowed the Conseil du patronat to lodge an appeal and that the Conseil du patronat retracted and accepted the existence of the act. That came to pass in 1978.

We must innovate and make progress on social issues. The current government must honour the commitment it first made when in opposition and then when dealing with the Ogilvie workers I mentioned earlier, in October 1994, when it was in power. If the government passes true antiscab legislation, there will be a consensus in Canada in a few years on its merits, as was the case in Quebec.

Introducing antiscab provisions into the Canada Labour Code will give unions and their members the tools to protect themselves from certain corporations, mainly American, wishing to set up shop in Canada without respecting the traditions of dialogue that have developed here in recent years.

These provisions would send a clear message to these employers that they must abide by Canada's laws and traditions. In other words, introducing antiscab measures into the Canada Labour Code will protect us from the effects of U.S. collective agreements, which are weak on seniority, occupational training, health and safety and in other areas.

• 0955

Antiscab legislation is a guarantee of industrial peace. We are seeking antiscab legislation based on the provisions of section 109.1 of the Quebec Labour Code, not on those of Bill C-19, which stipulates that it is forbidden to use scabs "for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity". By definition, using scabs not only undermines, but destroys a trade union's representational capacity. But proving that is too difficult to be effective and would result in endless debate. Scabs are never and will never be represented by a union.

We also believe that genuine antiscab provisions should be incorporated into sections 94, 97 and 99 of the Canada Labour Code and the hiring of scabs treated as an unfair labour practice.

With regard to essential services, we fail to understand why the bill contains provisions on the delivery of essential services, but none to prevent the use of scabs. It is indecent for employers to be able to use scabs in addition to requiring essential services. Moreover, the use of essential services and scabs will lead to confrontation, not only on the picket line, as workers who come under the federal code are well aware at the present time, but also in the workplace.

I will conclude by saying that following the strike of the ADM Ogilvie workers, CNTU believes there are sufficient grounds to demand that Parliament make the necessary provisions to return mills to provincial jurisdiction. This does not require any tiresome constitutional amendments. Parliament need only amend its legislation on wheat and delete any reference to flour mills. It could even proceed on a province-by-province basis if it wished, as it did in the case of milling operations. We are now well aware of the difference between milling operations and mills. It did so in the case of mills, in other words of workers who are directly involved with wheat. The government of Quebec would then merely have to accept flour mills under its jurisdiction while ensuring the continuity of current collective agreements.

I thank committee members for their attention and would be pleased to answer any of your questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will have relatively short time for questions, so we'll start off with about a two-minute round, beginning with Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Paquette for your presentation. I would like to question you on the virtually non-existent provisions relating to replacement workers or scabs as they are called. Are you aware of the difference between Bill C-66 and Bill C-19? In Bill C-19, the clause dealing with the hiring of scabs reads as follows:

...for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives...

All of this has been added: "demonstrated" and "rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives". I would like to hear your views on this. What could have lead the legislator to add these new words to the text of the bill? What is your reaction to that?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I could not tell you what might have lead the legislator to change the wording. I would simply say that given the way the clause is drafted, it would be legitimate for the employer to hire scabs in the course of the power struggle involved in bargaining. In the case of the antiscab provisions of the Quebec Labour Code, the employer is guaranteed that if he does not use strikebreakers, the striking workers will leave the premises intact so as to avoid any problems when production resumes. It seems perfectly legitimate to us that in the case of a labour dispute measures be taken to ensure that the equipment required for operations remain in good working order while awaiting the resumption of production.

However, it seems perfectly illogical for us to provide in the act for replacement workers, to use the terms contained in the text of the bill. In the context of negotiations, it is the very opposite. The employer must concentrate on resolving the problem and not on maintaining his activities.

I do not know whether Maurice Sauvé, who is executive assistant and has not been introduced, would like to add anything on that.

Mr. Maurice Sauvé (Assistant to the Executive Committee, Confederation of National Trade Unions): You wish to know if the amendment contained in the new bill will change anything compared with Bill C-66. I do not believe that there is any fundamental change here.

• 1000

The addition of the words "for the demonstrated purpose of undermining" in the context of the hiring of replacement workers and of "rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives", is to me a clear indication that the purpose of bargaining is to reach legitimate objectives. As to the prohibition relating to replacement workers, the text reads as follows:

(2.1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining...

Nothing is added here. The use of the words "for the demonstrated purpose" indicates the obligation to establish a purpose, and it is my belief that this requirement falls on the shoulders of the union. It is obvious that no employer will admit that the purpose of the hiring of replacement workers or of scabs is to undermine a union's representational capacity.

What is added here is that this must be established. In any event, even if those words had not been included here, in our opinion, the burden of proof that the employer is acting in bad faith would fall to the union.

Just try to prove the employer's ill will. Obviously, it is a series of facts. We need only think of certain bargaining cases in Ontario. It is extremely difficult to prove an employer's ill will. It is very difficult to prove bad intentions. It is virtually impossible. But we do know one thing: any initiative taken under this provision allows the employer to stall, and while the case is being dealt with by the courts, the replacement workers, the scabs, simply go about their business. This hinders labour relations.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sauvé.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It has always been my understanding that in the jurisdictions where there is anti-scab legislation, strikes are shorter in duration, there's less picket line violence, and there's in fact less frequency of lost time, strikes or lockouts. We haven't been given any statistical information on that. Is there anything you can share with us on the differences between the time when the province of Quebec did not have anti-scab legislation and the current situation?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: It is obvious that there is no anti-strikebreaker or antiscab act coming into play; this is one factor among many. But it is also very clear that in Quebec we have gone from a rate of strikes in the 1970s that was virtually identical to that of Italy at the same time, to an incidence of strikes and labour disputes that is nearly the lowest in the western world.

I would say that the legislation proper changes, not the balance of power, but the aim, and, as I mentioned, it centres the question on the main problem, which is the outcome of bargaining, rather than on the secondary problem which is the maintenance of operations during the dispute. Therefore, the employer and the union concentrate on the outcome of negotiations rather than on the other elements, which maintains mutual respect, that falls by the wayside when scabs are used.

I often stress the fact that when there is a labour dispute, the placards that you see do not deal with salary increases or improved working conditions, but with the issue of respect. The boss does not respect us. We are not respected. The use of scabs is the most shocking manifestation of this lack of respect for people who have often given several years of their lives to build up the company they work for.

We could supply the committee with statistics. It might also be interesting to look at what happened in British Columbia and to consolidate that argument.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Paquette.

Our time is very tight, given the length of the initial presentation.

[Translation]

Madam Bradshaw.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib): Good morning. My French is going to be "chiac". If you do not understand, there will not be a problem. We have interpreters who will be able to help you understand.

As far as the bill we are studying is concerned, there will obviously be those who are for and those who are against amongst the groups we will be meeting with.

• 1005

My question is the following: Do you trust the board that is to be put in place? Are you satisfied with the powers it will be granted?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I must say that as far as those matters are concerned, we do place our trust in the Canadian Labour Congress. As I mentioned, only a small proportion of our members come under the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We therefore have not questioned the decision made by the CLC, that was in agreement with the make-up of the new Canada Industrial Relations Board.

I am well aware that this board might play a role with regard to antiscab provisions. However, in our opinion, as Maurice was saying, it would be extremely difficult, given the text of the bill, to prove the will of an employer to undermine the representational capacity of the union. In the case of provisions dealing with bargaining in good faith, we sometimes get results, but only once the matter in dispute has been resolved. Therefore, the act as it is now drafted would not really play one way or the other to the advantage of the union in this balance of power. More often than not, it will be detrimental to the union. Therefore, we have not spoken out on the matter of the make-up of the board. We placed our trust in the CLC and in management representatives at the pan-Canadian level.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Johnston.

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

Thank you for your presentation. In your presentation you talk very strongly about any replacement worker legislation. Although I suspect I know the answer, I'm wondering if you don't see that the employer has a need or a right to use replacement workers, particularly management, out-of-scope people, to maintain the viability of their business or enterprise.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Sauvé: I believe that there are two elements. An act such as that of Quebec, for example, provides that those employees who are at work before the bargaining process is put into motion will have the right to work during the strike.

Secondly, it is provided that the employer, even in the case of an act such as that of Quebec, has the right to take the necessary measures to hire staff so as to ensure the protection of its assets and that perishable goods such as food, for example, will not be wasted. The Code therefore provides protection that guarantees the company that its goods and assets will not deteriorate.

The existence of antiscab legislation allows the parties to concentrate on bargaining. It is obvious that an employer who recruits scabs is worried about the productivity of these scabs. He forgets about the negotiation process.

Remember what happened in Quebec after several disputes that lead to violence. The most important incident was that at Pratt & Whitney, in 73-74. There was awful violence. The police had to storm the area. Some people were taken to prison, which was absolutely unacceptable. Scabs were also hired in the Gypsum case, and in the Robin Hood case. Security guards even used machine guns in the Robin Hood affair, and some people were hurt. When scabs are used in labour disputes, there is violence.

• 1010

Rodrigue Blouin, in his minority report to the Sims Report, explains why he disagrees with the Sims Report proposal, that is contained in Bill C-66: in his view, the use of scabs introduces third parties into the negotiation process. On the one side there is the employer, and on the other, there is the union, and the scabs are a third party that skews the entire bargaining game. I hope I have answered your question.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Sauvé, and thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate the time you've been able to spend with us.

Now we have a presentation from the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. I'm told we also have Mr. Lachance from Dow Chemical.

Gentlemen, given that there are two organizations, are you making one presentation or two separate presentations?

Mr. Richard Paton (President and CEO, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association): There will be one presentation, with some comments from my two colleagues.

The Chairman: Okay. You have roughly half an hour per group. We eat up a couple of minutes moving in and out. In making your remarks, I would ask you to try to save enough time to give members a chance to ask some questions.

Mr. Paton, please introduce your members.

Mr. Richard Paton: Thank you very much, Mr. Alcock.

Well, I'm very pleased to be able to present the views of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association to this committee. I am the president of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association or CCPA. With me are Claude-André Lachance, the director of government affairs at Dow Canada, and Dave Shearing, who is responsible for business development at the CCPA.

We intended to have Detric Ostapyk from Shell Canada in from Alberta today, but he got caught up in that Pearson fiasco and radar problems, etc. His perspective is very important because it's from an Alberta company that, as well as Dow Canada, is quite affected by this. So I'm going to have Dave Shearing present some of the views of Shell Canada on this.

Before I read my brief submission, which I think you all have, I'd like to say a few words of introduction on the CCPA's concerns with this amendment, particularly proposed section 87.7 of the Canada Labour Code.

Frankly, we've been very unhappy with the process the government has used to develop this amendment. And notwithstanding our submission on the subject, in conjunction with the submission of the Coalition of Employer Associations, we feel the government is simply not listening, or does not understand, the seriousness of the concerns we have raised.

Moreover, we've never had a satisfactory response to the issues we've raised, or to the proposed recommendations we've made, which are based on the results of several inquiries. By way of analogy, we really see this legislation as a train going over a cliff, and nobody seems to be willing to say that there's a disaster lurking ahead.

So I guess that today we're going to tell you a little about the disaster that does lurk ahead, and we're going to be quite vivid about it. This is a very important opportunity for us to raise the CCPA's concerns with respect to Bill C-19, particularly since the CCPA was denied an appearance before the committee when Bill C-66 was being considered, although Claude-André managed to talk to the Senate.

• 1015

We want to make you aware that the amendments proposed are not in the public interest, have a very serious impact on Canada, and put at serious risk the chemical industries and other sectors of the Canadian economy. Moreover, the amendment is not necessary, since there is no crisis right now. This amendment, particularly the amendment with a grain exemption, may lead to a crisis, provide an avenue for increased labour unrest, and thereby prolong any work stoppage in the port of Vancouver.

Such a work stoppage would have a devastating impact on the competitiveness of Canadian products in Asian markets, and could put in jeopardy over $4 billion of new petrochemical investments under way in Alberta.

I'll speak directly to the presentation we have provided to you. Our submission focuses on one provision of Bill C-19, namely the amendment that would add section 87.7 to the Canadian Labour Code, part I.

The CCPA is firmly opposed to this amendment, which provides that grain vessels will continue to receive services during work stoppages in ports, while vessels carrying other important export cargoes, such as petrochemicals and other chemicals, would receive no such relief. We want to be clear that we have no argument with grain shippers. We agree that reforms are needed to protect and enhance Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier in key export markets. But our point is that the solution should apply across the board. This should not simply be limited to one commodity.

The CCPA represents 72 member companies producing $15 billion worth of industrial chemicals annually, with 55% of that output destined for export markets. Our member companies produce petrochemicals, inorganic chemicals and specialty chemicals. Exports through the west coast ports are important for companies in each of these categories, but they are especially important for Alberta's petrochemical producers. These companies, two of which we'll talk about today, count on exporting a substantial part of the output from their world-scale plants to Asian markets.

In the global marketplace for petrochemicals and other commodity chemicals, price and on-time delivery are two major competitive forces. When there's even a hint of possible transportation work stoppages in Canada, our member companies hear immediately from their customers in China, Japan and Korea, and other vital export markets. When the work stoppage actually occurs, which has happened all too frequently over the years, some of our members have lost sales to customers who turn to competitors in countries that do not have a history of frequent labour disruptions in their shipping processes. The United States and Saudi Arabia are examples.

Other members have been able to weather transportation disruptions to some extent, so long as the government reacts reasonably promptly to bring them to an end, but the additional costs incurred in so doing are important.

All our members using west coast ports are concerned about the future. However, if grain vessels receive the special treatment proposed in Bill C-19, there would naturally be less pressure to bring work stoppages to a timely end.

Today member companies such as Dow, Methanex, NOVA Chemicals, Shell, Union Carbide and others ship chemicals valued at $1.3 billion through the west coast ports, primarily Vancouver.

Our member companies also have announced major petrochemical investments in Alberta. These will substantially increase these investments over the next few years, because in order to be viable, a new plant must plan to market an average of 40% of its output to offshore markets. New ethylene, polyethylene, ethylene glycol and other investments with capital costs totalling $4 billion have been announced, mainly for Alberta, with more still to come. Disruptions to shipments from these plants would cost our members millions of dollars and lead to temporary, and possibly permanent, reductions in jobs. Perhaps even more important, work stoppages in the transportation system are taken into account when potential investors assess Canada for additional new chemical projects. They certainly result in a large black mark on the checklist of investment factors.

We recommend the deletion of proposed section 87.7 from Bill C-19, and its replacement by the alternative proposal submitted by the Coalition of Employer Associations, a copy of which is attached to our submission.

This proposal is based on the results of the inquiries that have been made on the west coast. So we're not just coming up with these proposals by ourselves. They're very well founded on a lot of work that's been done in the past. That alternative would address the concerns of grain shippers, while ensuring that all commodities moving through the ports will be treated equally in the event of work stoppages.

Thank you for listening to the views of the association. I will now turn to Dave Shearing. He's going to talk a little about the Shell Canada challenges. Then Claude-André will talk about Dow.

• 1020

Mr. David J. Shearing (Project Manager, Business Development, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association): As Richard Paton has indicated, Detric Ostapyk, who was supposed to be attending today from Shell Chemical in Calgary, was waylaid in Toronto and is unable to make this statement.

Since September 1984 Shell Chemical has been shipping styrene monomer, which is one of the key petrochemicals, through the port of Vancouver to Asia-Pacific customers. Bill C-19 threatens the security of supplies, not only to Shell's current customer base for styrene, but also to new customers of our new plant production of monoethylene glycol—that's antifreeze, essentially—scheduled to come on stream in the third quarter of the year 2000. This is a new Shell plant.

Both chemical plants have, or will have, the capacity to store approximately 20,000 metric tonnes of the respective products in fixed storage tanks or rail equipment, which would be idle if there was a strike. The maximum allowable time before slowdown would be approximately 21 days, with the risk of full shutdown of the plant if running the facility at less than 50% of operating capacity. Essentially you wouldn't be able to operate below 50% capacity for very long before you'd have to shut down.

The short-term economic risk is loss of sales, loss of rail car utilization, vessel cost demurrage, and cost of shutdown start-up.

Long-term risk includes uncertainty of plant operations due to shutdown and, more importantly, the damage caused to Asia-Pacific customers who rely on our supply and could be vulnerable to a potential shutdown. There is also the reality that it would be difficult to win those customers back.

Shell Chemical views the Asia-Pacific market as strategic to its overall business. Continuity and consistency of supply are a basic requirement demanded by customers. Bill C-19 has the potential to increase the country risk for our particular products. It would be incumbent on us to review other terminalling options, that is, other Canadian or U.S. ports, in order to reduce that risk.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Lachance.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance (Director, Government Affairs, Dow Chemical Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

This issue is not a theoretical one for Dow Chemical. It is one that has mobilized our senior management for the past 18 months in countless meetings we've had with the minister and various other officials. We're somewhat frustrated, to say the least, that it's the eleventh-and-a-half hour, and we're still trying to describe what we believe is going to be a serious mishap in the making. This is from the point of view of our continued ability to move our products for export markets.

Let me describe the situation for you. Dow operates a $2.5 billion facility in Alberta. It is an integrated petrochemical site. It's what we refer to as a global site in that it has to rely on export markets—more specifically, Pacific Rim countries. Because it is landlocked, we have to move our product through the Vancouver harbour.

Just to give you a sense of perspective, we move one million tonnes a year, worth $350 million. We are a major mover in Vancouver. This is $1 million a day, more or less. We have no ability to absorb a labour stoppage.

We operate under a real-time delivery system. We operate our own fleet of cars. We have 35 cars a day shipped through Vancouver harbour. The turnaround time is six days, from the time we load those cars in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, to the time they're moved into ships, and back to Fort Saskatchewan. That's six days.

After six days, in the case of a labour dispute, our ability to move our products is stopped. We have to shut down our plants in Fort Saskatchewan. Because those are commodity chemicals, those $1-million-a-day sales are lost for the company, but they are also lost to the country. I'm not going to talk about the loss of goodwill and the fact that our customers are going to question our ability to be a reliable supplier of those commodity substances.

• 1025

So when we talk about a major disaster looming here, this is real dollars, real problems and real concerns for us.

In a letter to the minister from our president last summer, we indicated that we were actively going to pursue alternative shipping options in case this provision, this grain exemption, was going to move forward. Let me explain why we had to do that.

It's a business risk issue. The problem with this provision is that it is fundamentally flawed in what it tries to do. Yes, there is a difficult labour relations situation in Vancouver harbour. That has been recognized for a long time. In fact, the government appointed the west coast ports inquiry commission to look into that situation. That commission spent months listening to witnesses and produced a hefty report.

That report was basically ignored by the Sims commission. As a matter of fact, in a letter we received from then Minister of Labour Alfonso Gagliano, the minister acknowledged that the recommendation by Sims was at odds with the recommendations from the west coast ports inquiry commission.

What will happen in practice in case of a labour dispute—this is not theoretical, members of the committee, because on December 21, 1998, two contracts will need to be renewed, longshoremen and foremen. There's a long tradition that disputes in Vancouver harbour end up in a labour disruption and a strike. There's a long tradition of pressure being brought to bear on Parliament to reconvene and to call the parties back to work.

What makes anybody think that with the 8% of the harbour's volume that is grain, with 92% being other commodity products—pulp and paper, mining, petrochemicals—the pressure will be any less for Parliament to address what will become a major issue from the point of view of export markets and ability to move our products? What makes anybody think the parties are going to be induced to negotiate in good faith, except taking our chances with the process?

As a business that has to deal with risk, we cannot take that risk, so what we have proposed—and we have had absolutely no feedback from the minister, Mr. Chairman—is that the government examine and move back to the proposal put forward by the west coast harbours inquiry commission, where the minister will be given a wide spectrum of tools to ensure that the public interest will be maintained in the case of a labour dispute in Vancouver harbour.

We hope this committee, at this eleventh hour, will take a long, hard look at this provision and what it purports to do. It purports to remove the grain situation in the hope that the parties are going to negotiate in good faith. I emphasize the word “hope”, because there's no guarantee that it is going to work. And if it doesn't work, who do you think will pay for that unrest? It will be companies like mine that will lose $1 million a day after six days of labour dispute.

Members of the committee, I'll leave you with this thought. This is a real issue and a real risk for businesses that are innocent bystanders, innocent third parties in such disputes in Vancouver harbour. Thank you.

The Chairman: I thank all of you.

We have consumed about 18 minutes of the 30 minutes that we have. Given that there are three of you, and to allow responses to any questions members might have, I'm going to ask each member who has indicated they have a question to pose their question, and then I'll give you a chance to respond to the questions in an efficient and timely fashion.

• 1030

Mr. Martin, please pose your question.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I only have one question, and it's a matter for clarification. I haven't had much time to view what you sent around. Would your first choice be to scrap the privileged status for grain, or would it be to apply that same status to all other commodities moving through the port? In other words, would you pretty much have a “no strike” clause for all commodities moving through the west coast ports? Which are you recommending today?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Ms. Brown, pose your question, please.

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Thank you.

You say that your association exports 55% of $15 billion worth of chemicals, which I work out to $8.25 billion, and in the course of this discussion it's been implied that all of that moves through Vancouver. How many dollars worth of goods actually move through Vancouver? I assume you export some south to the United States and some to Europe, so how much of your exports actually go through Vancouver?

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Brown.

Mr. Johnston.

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

I'd like to thank the panel for their presentation. You made reference to the west coast ports inquiry and some of the tools that would have been made available to the department to settle problems that seem to crop up annually or semi-annually in the west coast ports, and they always require Parliament to intervene. Could speak about some of those options, in particular how you feel about dispute settlement mechanisms in general?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: If there is, as you fear, a work stoppage, will your company use the Canada Labour Code and this provision allowing the hiring of replacement workers?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

Gentlemen, I would ask you to respond to those four questions in a timely way.

Mr. Richard Paton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll respond to Mr. Martin's comment, Dave Shearing will respond to the question about exports, and Claude-André will respond on the west coast inquiry issue and maybe carry on with the further questions.

Mr. Martin, I think our proposal, which is in attachment one.... The answer to your question is that we would like to see proposed section 87.7 replaced by the approach that the Coalition of Employer Associations has proposed with respect to alternative proposed Canada Labour Code disputes affecting Canadian ports.

This proposal is based on the west coast inquiry proposal. It does not eliminate the possibility of a strike, but it does provide the minister with the opportunity to go in, negotiate, appoint an arbitrator, take a pause, look at the impacts and do a kind of orderly process to dispute resolution, as opposed to working through the kind of dynamics that you usually have with a work stoppage, return of the House, legislation, etc.

We would see that as applying to all commodities. It would deal with proposed section 87.7, replace it and deal with it in a more equitable way, in our view. It would be a fair way for companies and a reasonable way for labour. We're not suggesting that the right to strike be eliminated here, only that alternative dispute mechanisms be used to their fullest.

Mr. David Shearing: You were asking about exports through the port of Vancouver. In our submission we state that $1.3 billion worth of chemicals are shipped through west coast ports, primarily Vancouver. In fact, the total of chemicals exported is about 25% higher than the grain shipped from the west coast ports. That gives you some perspective. We actually export about 25% more than there is grain moving.

• 1035

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: The alternative proposal put forward by the coalition that you are going to hear from, this Coalition of Employer Associations, will basically have two components. First is an analytical component whereby the ministry will appoint a special adviser who will monitor the situation in Canadian ports, but more specifically in Vancouver, so as to ensure that full information, from the point of view of both labour relations and the competitive situation of the shippers, is well established. We will release a report on periodic business. That's the first part.

The second part is that minister will be given various powers, a spectrum of tools, from declaring a cool-off period, to appointing a mediator, to applying whatever limitations the minister feels appropriate in terms of the exercising of the right to strike or lock out, all the way to final-offer arbitration as one possible tool. It's a spectrum of tools, but it will not be removal of the right to strike. It will basically empower the minister to intervene in whatever way he or she sees fit.

We believe this will protect our interest, the public interest and the continued ability of Canada to be seen as a reliable exporter of commodity products.

As for the more specific questions about the ratio of exports, as I indicated, our Fort Saskatchewan facility is a global facility. It is being designed for exports. About 80% of the production goes to export markets. About 50% of that goes through Vancouver harbour and 80% of that 50% goes to the Pacific Rim. Another 20% goes to the U.S. gulf coast, to California. So you can see that a major element of that production goes through Vancouver harbour.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Lachance. In fact, thank you to all of you gentlemen. I appreciate the fact that you are here today to present this. I believe Minister MacAulay met with senior representatives from Dow and has written to the president of Dow. I trust information has been shared with other members. And as you point out, it's an important issue that we must consider, so thank you for being here.

The author of the grain provision is about to come to the table. You might trip her on her way up.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Ms. Townsend.

Mr. Richard Paton: We might stay and listen.

The Chairman: Okay. Come on, Patty. Bring the group. This is Prairie Pools, with Mr. Pearson, Mr. Edie, Mr. Van Der Haegen and the redoubtable Patty Townsend.

Let's begin. As you may have figured out from watching, we have just under half an hour per presentation. If you can confine your remarks to about ten minutes, it will give members a little more time. If you feel you need more time to make the points that you wish to make, then we'll do what we did before, which is to allow members to pose a question...and if you take the whole thirty minutes, you won't get a question.

So who is going to lead off?

Mr. John Pearson (Chairman, Prairie Pools Inc.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman Alcock. You have our paper. I don't think I need to introduce you to Prairie Pools. We represent three significant grain organizations in western Canada, the wheat pools from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We represent about 100,000 prairie farmers. We do more than 50% of the grain business in western Canada. We have significant terminal positions, both in Vancouver and Thunder Bay, where we deal with this issue on a daily basis. We've had long-term relationships with all the labour associations.

• 1040

If there's one thing we need to maybe make note of, it's that we're in the process of negotiations right now. There's a contract coming up this year, so we need to move forward with this legislation. It's important to the industry.

There have been many changes in the industry. In 1994, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the grain industry developed a vision for the industry for 2005. That vision would basically be for the industry to be able to supply grain commodities at a significantly higher number, when they want them, where they want them, and on time all the time.

But I guess the issue for the industry is that Canada's reputation as a supplier has been harmed by the labour negotiations, strikes, and walkouts that have occurred. The issue was clearly identified when the Western Grain Marketing Panel met with the senior officer of China's marketing agency. He said that we were not reliable suppliers of grain. They cannot afford to stop their processes, mills, or malt plants to wait for us to settle a labour issue. They're not interested in dealing with that problem; they'll go elsewhere.

As we say in our brief, Japan has purchased, and is organizing, canola grown in other countries that don't have the same kinds of issues to be dealt with. So this is a touchy issue for Canada if we're going to keep our reputation of being a consistent supplier of quality products to the world.

We have a long history of labour disputes. Over the last decade, grain has been stopped 16 times, resulting in 230 days of lost time.

Now, as you are well aware, whenever you have a stoppage it takes a considerable amount of time to get the whole system rolling again. At the end of the day, who pays for it all? It's really the farmers of western Canada who have been paying for this process over time.

The west coast moved more than 60% of the grains and oilseeds through the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. As the Sims review and the Canada Labour Code pointed out, grain is a very unique industry. The product is perishable. It's a food product. It originates from a much different environment from that of the other commodities that are originated through the west coast. It's a more fragile industry in that it affects significantly more people overall when you consider all the various collections of farms and the employees of various companies who work in western Canada for the grain industry.

We struggle with the discussion when the comparison is not made that grain is a food. It's a vital food for the customers we sell to. When that process is interrupted, it becomes a high concern for the people who are our customers around the world.

• 1045

Grain terminal operators really have no input into the negotiations between the longshore and employers. That's done in a third-party environment. The Industrial Inquiry Commission actually recommended and said that grain could actually be loaded onto the boats directly by bypassing the longshore completely.

We feel this amendment in this bill is a compromise. Interestingly, both labour and management support the compromise.

If there's anything I do want to point out, it's that the whole process of collective bargaining almost becomes something similar to a poker game, where the ace in the hole is the capacity to halt grain exports. It has been recognized for a long time that if you halt grain exports, if you're patient and don't negotiate, and if grain is stopped, then ultimately the government will move in and legislate the whole process of getting people back to work.

Grain has been used as a bargaining tool. We feel that we need equal footing in a negotiation process that allows us to provide a proper negotiating environment with our labour groups on the west coast.

We understand that the shippers of the other bulk commodities are uneasy with this provision. We recognize that with grain being removed, it will change the whole labour relations environment in which they operate.

It's important, though, for this legislation to enhance the collective bargaining process. That's absolutely critical.

Removing grain from the equation will not only result in effective collective bargaining for the longshore, it will allow the grain industry to work toward increased competitiveness without the threat of being held hostage to other labour disputes. I think that's a point that we want to make very clearly with this committee.

In conclusion, the prairie grain industry is recognized as one of the most efficient industries in the world. We produce a consistently high-quality product for which international customers are prepared to pay a premium for.

We haven't got our industry perfect. There are a lot of rationalizations and changes going on in the industry right now. I will say that the farmers generally are recognizing that there are some very significant costs to be paid in the rationalizations and changes that are occurring. It's critical that we drive down the costs, yet labour interruptions in the grain industry significantly drive up costs.

The quality of our product and the efforts of our industry to increase its efficiency in meeting market demand and improving Canada's reputation as a supplier has deteriorated. Much of the damage to our reputation has been done by the disruption of grain flow by labour disputes.

Prairie Pools believes in the collective bargaining process, and we welcome the provisions in Bill C-19, which will create a better labour relations environment. It's our hope that the streamlined process will result in more settlements and many fewer work stoppages.

Mr. Chairman—I'm not sure whether Dennis or Patty would have some additional words—that's really our presentation.

The Chairman: Okay. I think since it worked so efficiently the last time, I'll do the same thing this time: I would ask you to get your pens out, I'll ask each one of the various members to pose the question they wish to pose, and then I'll give you an opportunity to answer it. Okay?

• 1050

An hon. member: Can we make any more comments?

The Chairman: No, not at this point.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it's pretty clear in your presentation where you stand on proposed section 87.7 and the fact that this particular section will exempt you from labour disputes at the port. One of the things I'm trying to get a handle on is the suggestion by some already this morning that there's a crisis looming if we put this particular section in the bill.

This is one about which you'll have to give us a better understanding, as one of the major commodities. Would it not be possible that if we remove grain from the equation as it relates to labour disputes—as the ace in the hole, as people put it—and remove that security blanket of the other commodities...because that's what you've been all along, a security blanket. Artificially you've changed the whole labour relations system, because they don't have to bargain either; they'll just wait for you guys to get into the equation, and then they'll all be legislated back to work. That's what we've done time and time again.

Is it a possibility that once you're out of this particular equation another commodity will become the ace in the hole? Or is it that you're so big and because farmers are so vocal, and it affects just about every farming family across the nation, that this is the major issue and there will no longer be that ace in the whole, and labour relations will start to go back to their more normal course, as the intention of this is? I'd like to know whether, in your opinion, there is a potential that another commodity could become used as the ace in the hole that you mentioned.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, and welcome back to the committee.

You mentioned 16 work stoppages in the past 10 years, and certainly that's not a very enviable record. You also mentioned the recommendations made by the west coast ports inquiry. We just had a group in here that has concerns with work stoppages at the west coast ports, and basically their concern is very similar to yours, which is that work stoppages damage their reputation as a worldwide reliable exporter, and their customers tend to seek out alternate places to buy.

One of the things that was recommended in the west coast ports inquiry was a dispute settlement mechanism that would kick into these monopoly situations. You don't have much choice; you can't go to the port down the street, because there is only one port. I would like your comments on how you would greet a dispute settlement mechanism so that Canada could maintain its reputation as a reliable shipper, and not only just for grain but a lot of other commodities as well.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I have just one question for you. As an industry, you have a special exemption in this bill. Do you think this exemption is given to you because of the fact that you are a major industry with a great impact on the Canadian economy, or is it because yours is a perishable commodity?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: As a Winnipegger, but also being from a trade union background, I had to wrestle with the idea that some product would be excluded or given privileged status. But I have, certainly through a learning process, come to realize how that seems to be a very good idea in my mind.

What's mixing me up a little bit is we had a presentation from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce yesterday arguing that grain now should not have any status of that nature. My understanding was that during the whole consultation process the Canadian Chamber of Commerce did ratify this package that we see now.

So my question is, is this a contradiction, is this a change, or were you aware of the presentation by Sharon Glover yesterday?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Let me take prerogative of the chair to pose a question also.

• 1055

Mr. Pearson, in some of the things you mentioned—timing, security of delivery, predictability, all of those relating to your competitive position vis-à-vis your markets—what strikes me is that they are identical to the issues that were put on the table by the previous group. They have all of the same problems, such as security of delivery and all of those kinds of things. What differentiates grain?

Ms. Patty Townsend (Manager of Communications, Prairie Pools Inc.): My turn?

The Chairman: Your turn.

Ms. Patty Townsend: I'm going to lead off. I don't generally do this as a staff person, but I just wanted to....

There seems to be a common thread that's running through all of these questions, and we keep on saying that we're giving special status to grain. What we need to make perfectly clear is that it's not really special status for grain. We are now in a very unique and special situation. Labour disputes, into which we have no input whatsoever, between different sectors of the economy that we just happen to have to use because of the way it's structured on the west coast can shut us down.

We are not being made an essential service. We're not really giving grain an exemption. We still have to negotiate with our own 930 employees, and strikes and lockouts are still a possibility with them. We negotiate collectively with our own employees and we believe in that process. What this provision is doing is putting us on an equal footing with other bulk shippers. It gives us the opportunity to not have to be held hostage by disputes into which we have no input whatsoever.

Their concerns are legitimate. We understand that they're in the same sort of situation in terms of labour disputes having an impact on their competitiveness and their ability to compete in the world, but they have input into the negotiations. If they can influence the employer group, which has in its membership terminals that handle their products specifically and in some cases are owned by their products, they can stop a labour dispute. We can't do that because we have no input. All we want to do is be put onto an even footing.

We also very strongly believe that if grain is not there being held hostage and if they don't have grain to rely on for back-to-work legislation, they will, in the end, realize that collective bargaining works very well.

Mr. Dennis Van Der Haegen (Prairie Pools Inc.): If I might, Mr. Chairman, as a very active farmer in northwest Saskatchewan I certainly feel the implications of this right on my doorstep whenever these labour disputes take place because of the backlog of product back into the prairies and certainly then the time it takes to resolve the backlog. But what Canada should be concerned about, and what the industry should be somewhat concerned about anyway, and I feel that the grain industry is, is the potential loss of markets because of our guarantees and because of, as John mentioned, the quality as well as supply guarantees that we have with a number of countries.

We're not the sole supplier of this product. It is a food product. It is perishable, so it has to be moved in a timely fashion. More countries are buying on a need-to-have basis rather than on a storage basis now, so certainly as far as Canada is concerned with the balance of trade, I think grain plays a very essential part in that and we have significant markets that need to be treated with kid gloves. So I think this gives some opportunities as well from that side of the equation.

The Chairman: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Pearson, do you have any concluding comments?

Mr. John Pearson: Yes. In response to Mr. Johnston, we recognize that dispute settlement is part of the process of labour negotiation and that at some point in time we will be dealing with the negotiation process that way—pretty well consistently most of the time—but we need to be sure that we are on an even footing, that we have good input into the process so that we can make sure our issues are addressed and that a proper negotiation process prevails. We think, clearly, that if grain is not held hostage there is still more opportunity for a good negotiation process to prevail.

• 1100

When you have labour groups and management groups talking about issues that affect their environment, you need to have an environment that allows the two groups to effectively talk to each other and work the whole process out. Everybody at the end of the day can hopefully move toward a win-win situation and can avoid the issue of somebody declaring that one party's interests are better than the other party's interests. We feel very strongly that negotiation is the best process to use in that environment.

The Chairman: Good.

Ms. Patty Townsend: I'm sorry, we forgot to answer Mr. Rocheleau's question.

I don't think what we're getting is either because we're large or because we're perishable, although that does enter into the equation. What we're asking for is just to have a good, effective collective bargaining system. The removal of grain from that equation will enhance collective bargaining for everybody.

We're still prepared to fully, fairly and honestly collectively bargain with the Grain Workers Union, which moves grain, and the employers association to which we belong, and we certainly hope that proposed section 87.7 will help the other shippers to negotiate with the longshore.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, and hopefully this will be the last time we have a discussion on this particular bill.

For an opposing view, we have the Western Grain Elevator Association. We would like to welcome Mr. Cummings, Mr. MacKay and Mr. Guest.

[Translation]

Yes, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: To follow up on the discussion started earlier by my colleague, Mr. Nault, I would like to point out that the witness comes with a document in English only and that we are not making a fuss over it.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau, I cannot tell you how much we appreciate that.

Mr. Cummings, you saw how we are proceeding here. We have roughly 30 minutes. If you could keep your opening remarks concise and to the point, then we'll have time for members to have questions.

Mr. Ed H. Guest (Executive Director, Western Grain Elevator Association): Mr. Chairman, honourable members, the first thing I will do is apologize for the fact that our presentation is in English only.

The Chairman: It's not necessary for it to be in both languages. We translate everything. This is a dispute that's gone on in other forums, so don't you worry about it.

Mr. Ed Guest: Western Grain Elevator Association members certainly appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you. We're not going to comment on the entire bill; we are going to deal with proposed section 87.7 only.

Our membership was founded in the late 1800s. We represent the 10 grain companies that own some 99% of all primary elevators in western Canada. The only terminal elevator in western Canada that we do not own is the port of Churchill.

West coast issues are so very important that back in 1957 we formed a group called the British Columbia Terminal Elevator Operators Association, which is a part of the WGEA. This presentation is on behalf of our parent members and the BCTEOA.

• 1105

This matter is so very important that we've asked Mr. Cummings, chief executive officer of Alberta Wheat Pool and vice-chairman of our group, to make the presentation. Mr. Murdoch MacKay, who is also with us today, is chairman of the terminal elevator association, another group with us.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it over to Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Gord Cummings (Vice-Chairman, Western Grain Elevator Association): Thank you very much, Ed. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Chairman.

The importance of the grain industry is well recognized by most Canadians, although the interveners two steps back from the chemicals group didn't have their statistics quite right. It represents 20% of all the movement through the west coast ports, not 8%, and in comparison to a little over $1 billion of movement, this is $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion of movement through the west coast ports.

We should go back and ask why the Canada Labour Code even applies to grain. It applies because, unlike other commodities under the Constitution Act, the grain elevators have been deemed for the general advantage of Canada and they have a different onus on them from anything else. Along this line, in a recent decision the Supreme Court of Canada stated that: “The movement of grain from the Western Terminals in Vancouver and Prince Rupert has always been of great economic importance to the country.”

Problems arise when disputes in other industries affect the flow of grain. Such disputes have nothing to do with worldwide competitive forces affecting the grain industry and they cannot be solved by economic forces at play between the parties in the grain industry. Instead, disputes are external to the grain industries and they lead to grain being used, as others have said, as a hostage.

To this end, approximately three years ago the Industrial Inquiry Commission into Industrial Relations at West Coast Ports was put in place with Greyell and Jamieson. It found that the longshore industry had the capacity to halt grain exports as a type of ace in the hole in the past.

So we're not talking about something that is in fact like everything else, as some would pretend. In fact, there has been a very clear study of this by labour relation experts on the west coast, and their finds were that:

Against the background just set out, the Commission examined the relationships and the state of industrial relations at West Coast Ports. In the long shoring industry in particular, many of the normal elements of a collective bargaining relationship as envisaged by the Code are wanting. This is especially evident in the critical area of dispute resolution where, as noted earlier, the parties constantly run into trouble.

In this regard, many point to continued government interference as the major contribution factor for the industry's ailments and they speak in terms of never having been allowed to address their own substantive problems. Closer to the truth though, is that the industry itself has brought this whole ritual of government intervention on themselves. Moreover, it is deliberately used by the industry to cloak its inability to resolve its own problems as well as a tool to counter the intransigence that is deeply rooted in their bargaining strategies. In the meantime, rather than engaging in serious and responsible negotiations as envisaged by the Code

—and why we want a Canada Labour Code—

the parties generally engage in what is termed in labour relations parlance as “surface bargaining”. This is a term used to describe a going through the motions, or a preserving of the surface indications of bargaining without the intent of concluding a collective agreement. Indeed, it appears to the Commission that collective bargaining in this industry has been reduced to a ritual that is more akin to a poker game with the ace-in-the-hole being the capacity to halt grain exports.

—and, I add, no other commodity but grain—

Everyone knows that when this card is played, it almost guarantees speedy intervention by Parliament. This in turn, reduces the risk of the parties having to face the hardships of a prolonged work stoppage. All the while, they are doing their best to manoeuvre their tactical positions getting prepared for the inevitable third party intervention. Collective bargaining per se, simply no longer exists.

Those are not our words. Those are the words of the experts in labour relations who studied this problem in depth.

The commission found that grain was affected on numerous occasions due to the inability of parties in the longshoring industry to arrive at a collective agreement. For example, legislation was recently needed in 1995 in order to prevent a stoppage of the grain due to a lockout of longshore foremen and in 1994 to end a strike by the longshore workers.

I would note that proposed section 87.7 only applies to the longshore. There are other parts where negotiations work, including our terminal employees where there is an economic balance on both sides. I've heard some people suggest that this covers all grain unions, but it does not. It deals with longshore, with a problem that has been identified as one that current collective negotiations do not work on.

• 1110

Our association submits that it is particularly important that disputes between parties in other industries be kept to those parties, and disputes not affecting grain.... To allow grain to become a hostage in disputes involving other industries causes severe detriment to Canada's competitive and reliable position in grain as a global economy. But I would submit, Mr. Chairman, it is affecting other industries.

You have heard from chemical, coal and others who have argued against proposed section 87.7. Allow me to submit that the whole charade of longshore inevitably leads to strikes, and the purpose of the Canada Labour Code is to have meaningful negotiation, not strikes and Parliament bringing people back to work. Proposed section 87.7 takes away the lever and I believe will lead to meaningful negotiations, the very purpose of the Canada Labour Code.

I will not cover everything in the presentation, but clearly Canada's reputation as a grain supplier is falling. Others might argue that our reputation in other industries is falling, and I will let them do that. The reality is that in Vancouver and on the west coast we have a process that does not work with longshoremen. It does not work and has been found to not be working by both Jamieson and Greyell and by Andrew Sims.

There is a proposal floating around now that would have ministers intervening in many steps and observing and so on. Under today's situation all that is possible, and if there are not serious negotiations—the result is the same. Those proposals ignore and suggest that they are based on Jamieson and Greyell. Jamieson and Greyell recommended that the longshore be taken off grain. The longshoremen on grain represent about one-third of all longshore workers.

We understand, as Andy Sims understood, that if that happened as the longshoremen said, it would be a fight to the death to get there. We understand that and look at proposed section 87.7 as a compromise. The alternative is to not have section 87.7 and to have us take the longshoremen off grain, to have violence in Vancouver, and to have property damage, if not physical damage to people. We would suggest the clause that's there will ensure practical negotiations, which is the purpose of the Canada Labour Code.

Our Prime Minister has taken trips to Latin America and Asia, where buyers have said we are becoming a less dependable supplier. What has happened is that other countries such as Australia, Argentina and the United States have improved their record in dealing with work stoppages, but we have not improved as much. It is that difference that makes us less competitive. We want to see fewer work stoppages on the west coast. We want to see effective, meaningful labour negotiations that result in settlements, and we strongly suggest that proposed section 87.7 will get there.

Unlike others who have appeared in front of you, the grain industry has been declared for the general advantage of Canada under the Constitution Act. While other commodities may be important, grain has been recognized as warranting different consideration in legislation that has previously been enacted. Both the House of Commons and the Senate have recognized that the grain industry is for the general advantage of Canada, in passing the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and these are all different from other commodities. In this respect, treating grain differently from other commodities in legislation is not a change from previous acts, but is consistent with the treatment of grain in other legislation.

I would want to point to the Sims task force, which was done by an eminent labour lawyer. This was the precursor to the legislation we are dealing with.

We expect that such approaches would not be welcomed by longshoremen and other maritime employers, as well as producers of other commodities exported through the west coast who might find it discriminatory. However, because of its importance the grain industry has been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada under the Constitution Act, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code. This is not the case with most other commodities. I would suggest that Sims recognized the uniqueness of grain and recognized that grain was causing problems in negotiations. Again, it was he who recommended section 87.7.

The purpose of this legislation is to have a labour negotiation environment that encourages balanced negotiation between employer and employee, and tries to have a situation where in the vast majority of contract renewals we reach agreement.

• 1115

It does not work on the west coast with regard to longshoremen. We have regular strikes that impact all. People have recently suggested you should not deal with this but wait for former Justice Estey to do his work on grain transportation. This issue has nothing to do with grain transportation. This issue has everything to do with labour relations and how the longshoremen and their employer relate to each other, and it properly belongs in the bill, where you have it.

Our association believes that proposed section 87.7, which requires the maintenance of service to grain vessels from the longshoremen, is a positive step towards removing the effects of labour disputes in other sectors from Canada's grain industry. This step is in line with recognition that grain has been used as the ace in the hole, that there has been surface bargaining in the longshore industry in the past, and that such occurrences should not be permitted to continue in the future.

The amendments are also in line with the recognition that the grain industry has been determined as being to the general advantage of Canada in other legislation, and the recognition that a healthy grain handling industry is important to the Canadian economy and the Canadian reputation as an effective grain exporter.

We have now sent the right message to the buyers of Canadian food. We are concerned that if the momentum of this initiative falters, our customers will conclude that Canadians are not concerned, and they will look elsewhere for more and more of their supplies.

We urge you to move this bill forward as soon as possible, and we urge that this legislation become law. Thank you for the opportunity to make this representation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cummings.

We have 10 or 12 minutes. I think I'll do the same thing.

Mr. Johnston, would you like to pose a question?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you.

Thank you for your submission. As a farmer myself, I'm certainly aware of and in favour of anything that's going to help grain move unimpeded right from the farm gate to the ports and beyond.

Will some other commodity be the ace in the hole in future times that will require Parliament to reconvene to legislate the parties back to work? Although you make a very compelling case because of the uniqueness of grain—perishable and a foodstuff and so forth—every other group that comes before us also makes the case that they're faced with the dilemma of trying to maintain a reputation as a reliable supplier of whatever their product is. I would like your comment on some sort of dispute settlement mechanism that would take the place of section 87.7.

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: In your document you point out that the Canadian Constitution describes grain and the whole grain industry as being "to the general advantage of Canada". Historically, do you think this was because of the economic importance of grain production and transportation or because grain is a perishable commodity?

You are aware of the representations made at this time by other major industrial sectors. What should we make of this?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That's a very good brief, and I think I understand most of the arguments. Just to clarify, though, on page 4 when you make reference to the 1995 work stoppage regarding longshore foremen, my memory is that when the bargaining came to an impasse and the employees were looking at their strike option, the offer was to keep handling the grain. It was only when it turned into a lockout that it became a real grain stoppage. To me this indicates that for years both sides have actually recognized that it would be better for the interests of collective bargaining if grain was removed from the whole picture. I would ask you to elaborate on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

• 1120

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the presenters to give us a sense of the consultations that took place. Some presenters previously suggested that extensive consultations were not held. I'd like to get some clarification of that. I'd also like to comment that I couldn't agree more that there hasn't been collective bargaining on the west coast for a long time. I don't think anybody knows what it is out there. It's interesting to see how it does work once this all takes place.

I don't like exemptions in the code. It's not a good thing to start, because somewhere down the line someone else will come with the same argument. This is a very important test of the code. If it doesn't work, then the argument will be made by others that we should do a complete third-party arbitration system and get rid of collective bargaining as we know it. So it's very important that we get this right. I think you've made a good case on that, but I'd like to make sure that all the parties were listened to and that there's a good understanding of what this will do on the west coast when all is said and done.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Gord Cummings: Thank you. Let me take the questions in order.

The first one was whether anything else would be held hostage if it wasn't grain. I think we would want to go back to first principles and say our desire is that there be negotiations that don't require continued government intervention. Our belief is that by not having grain held hostage, everyone would understand it's much less likely there would be back-to-work legislation, and that's what would lead to a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Martin brings up a very important point as to how the process always worked. The game is the same. The union says it will handle grain. For two days it handles grain and then the employer locks out the union. You have to understand that it's a rather unique employer in this situation because the employer is not the one who bears the cost. Longshoremen are built into the cost and effectively the employer, the BCMEA, passes the cost along. So the charade is that the union always says it will handle grain and the employer always locks out.

Mr. Rocheleau, in terms of the Constitution and why grain is in there, there's no doubt that the development of western Canada and CP was done on grain. It's in there because of that, but it's also in there for a different reason. The producers of grain are well over 100,000 independent farmers who have no power on their own, and they have to look to the government for support. All the other commodities—you mentioned Dow Chemical earlier—are large corporations that can represent themselves. The difference between grain and everything else is that the producer of the product is a dispersed group of small individuals, and it would be reasonable for them to look to government to balance the tables.

Mr. Nault, in terms of consultation in the creation of the Jamieson-Greyell report, there was extensive consultation. All commodity groups got to make representations, and on the table all the way along was that something different might be done with grain. Everyone was aware of that. The representations you've heard today on this have been made several times before by the various groups—to Jamieson and Greyell and to Andy Sims when that was done. And of course this is the second round on this bill. This bill was before the last Parliament and those same groups made their representations then. So I think to say there has not been representation would be naive.

Finally, it seems to me that so many of the other representatives don't talk about the fact that the objective is to have a code that ensures that we have an orderly labour environment in Canada, and that only when there is a material problem between a union and an employer is there the possibility of a strike. The west coast has not worked that way. To suggest that we have an observer there and this will all work—it is as if someone came in from Mars and has not watched the last 20 years on the west coast, is not aware that we have not progressed on the west coast, as have the ports of other countries. This was a compromise solution that I hope you and all the members of the House will in the end agree to pass.

• 1125

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I found the presentation very interesting. You clarified a piece for me. I wasn't aware of the constitutional implications. So thank you very much.

From the Canadian Courier Association we have Mr. Doug Moffatt and Mr. Denis Manzo.

Gentlemen, you're all buttoned in and you have your seatbelts on. I always feel like I'm on a bit of a bus tour. It's 11.30 a.m., so it must be couriers.

You were here for the last witness. You have about half an hour. If you keep your remarks to about ten minutes, we will have a chance for a few more questions. If you need a little more time to make your points, then I'll do what I did last time—get all the questions on the table and then allow you to respond.

Mr. Doug Moffatt (Executive Director, Canadian Courier Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be brief and try to make the points as succinctly as possible.

The Canadian Courier Association appreciates the opportunity to comment on some of the features of the proposed legislation, and for your time and efforts to make this bill, we feel, a more equitable piece of legislation.

The CCA is an organization of courier companies that was formed 15 years ago to promote the interests of these companies, their employees and their suppliers. The organization has a membership roster of about 120 companies, ranging from one- and two-person operations to very large multinational corporations. There are approximately 2,200 courier companies in Canada. Obviously not all belong to our association, as much as we might wish this. Not all of the large couriers belong to our association either, for a variety of reasons, but as issues develop we work with those people as well.

The industry is extremely competitive. Not all small companies grow into larger ones and not all survive. The industry employs 40,000-plus people and is a major link for companies in both international and domestic trade. The dependable, predictable and flexible services provided by the various companies is a major component of any industry in our economy.

Some of the components of Bill C-19 are of great concern to our members. We are concerned because some of the provisions ignore privacy values, perpetuate undemocratic rules and introduce measures that make Canadian enterprises that are subject to federal labour legislation less competitive.

I'll outline our position with respect to those portions of the bill that are of concern. In the current situation there's some degree of onus on the organizers of a proposed union to demonstrate support from the workers. The proposed legislation amends the act, and our position is that Bill C-19 should be amended by deleting clause 46. The new Canada Industrial Relations Board should be compelled to hold representation votes and should unequivocally state that in no circumstance may the board certify a trade union that has not secured majority support at a representation vote held by secret ballot.

The additional powers to arbitrators in clause 27 seems to us to go beyond what is needed. The uncertainty caused by allowing arbitrators to make decisions that go beyond the language of the contract is unacceptable and can lead to situations where the intent of the contract is ignored, and can limit the ability of employees and employers to work in harmony. If the contract is silent on an issue, we feel the intent of the agreement should be the guiding force.

• 1130

Privacy rights: Currently there is no provision for the distribution of information about employees to unions directly, and our position is that the privacy of employees must be protected. Any requirement to disclose names and addresses of employees seriously challenges the right of an employee to his or her privacy.

During the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology debate on Bill C-66, Bruce Phillips, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, expressed his opposition to this clause. Clearly there is cause for concern when Canada's authority on privacy issues expresses disagreement at the prospect of such intrusive tactics being implemented.

At a minimum, individual employee written consent must be required before any such information is to be released. Otherwise, the clause should be removed.

Replacement workers is one that caused a lot of discussion earlier today, and will continue to, I'm sure. We feel the Canada Industrial Relations Board should not have the jurisdiction to ban the use of replacement workers. Past actions of the current board demonstrate that employers have every reason to expect that the board will consistently characterize the presence of replacement workers as unlawful conduct.

During any labour dispute, it is not in anyone's best interest to strand customers' goods in the network of any courier. This principle is applied in the case of employees working in the grain handling sector. It makes sense to apply somewhat the same principle to the goods of manufacturers and others that could be trapped in the pipeline during a labour dispute. The effect on customers could be drastic and lead to a loss of volume after a strike. This leads to fewer jobs to resume after a dispute.

The ambiguous language of Bill C-19 leaves uncertainty in our minds even about the ability of a company to use non-bargaining unit employees to clear the network of our customers' goods in the event of a dispute. The bill should explicitly recognize the right of management to work to limit damage to customers as well as it recognizes the union's right to strike. Our preference would be to see the clause deleted.

Benefit payments during a labour dispute as set out in section 94.3 are a difficult area. Benefits are a condition of employment and continuance during a dispute is, in our minds, akin to continuing wage payment during a dispute. Surely economic pressure exerted upon an employer is a consequence of strike action, as is the loss of wage a consequence for the employee. The provision of strike pay and payment of benefits during a work stoppage are the responsibility of the union only.

Our preference would be to delete the subclause. However, if it remains, the word “attempt” is ambiguous and we need to have it interpreted more carefully.

In conclusion, we are concerned about some of the provisions of this bill—not all; we think you have done an admirable job—that are undemocratic, that invade the privacy of individuals, and in which the playing field seems unlevel, as evidenced in the grain handling situation and the disadvantage of federally regulated companies vis-à-vis provincial competitors that operate under different codes.

The Chairman: Thank you. You were most efficient.

I'll go back to a former method of questioning. I'll start with Mr. Rocheleau and we'll respond individually. I have a little more time and a little more flexibility here.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: You state at the end that the provisions for the grain industry and the grain handlers should be extended to other industries. Are you aware that there is a specific exemption for grain in the Canadian Constitution and that we would need to amend the Canadian Constitution if we were to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion?

[English]

The Chairman: That's easy.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Very easy.

Mr. Doug Moffatt: I've never been asked to comment on the Constitution in a forum like this, so I appreciate your comment. Obviously a lot of us have learned a lot this morning about the placement in the Constitution of certain aspects. I don't suppose we're going to see an amendment to the Constitution that would change that.

Our point in raising that issue is simply to illustrate that despite the many things that have been accomplished as this bill worked its way through, that's an area that does open the door to making a more equitable and level playing field for all components of our industry and others. There are similarities and obviously there are differences.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin.

• 1135

Mr. Patrick Martin: I have a couple of things. First of all, I'm not surprised that the issue of off-site workers and access to off-site workers would be of special interest to your organization. Many of the employees of your member companies would probably fit into that category, would they not—working independently with their own vehicles, etc.?

Mr. Doug Moffatt: There are two parts to this that I think are of concern, and you've highlighted one.

Not all of the companies that are members of my association—and not all courier companies either—are unionized. Some are, and some are not. And in companies where they are unionized, not all of the employees are organized. There are off-site workers, remote workers and companies that, although very small at this point, are growing and would at some point be the object of an organizational attempt, which is legitimate.

We feel that whole area has to be dealt with quite carefully. When you make it mandatory for an employer to turn over to an organizing attempt lists of employees—we feel the inclusion of an individual's name should be by his consent before the list is turned over.

Mr. Patrick Martin: How do you see it being different from the voters list being made available in an election campaign, for instance? You mentioned Bruce Phillips, the privacy commissioner. He was here yesterday and he argued that the difference is you can keep your name off the voters list, if you choose, so that it's not published. But what he didn't say was that you then forfeit the right to vote, so you're excluded; you're not registered to vote.

In the interests of fairness, of having access to the same opportunity the in-plant employees have, how do you see it...? My argument is that the right to take part in the union or not is still up to the employee, but don't you think everybody should have equal access to the opportunity? It's an issue of natural justice to be given the same opportunity to take part in the organizing drive or not.

Mr. Doug Moffatt: I would agree with that statement, but at the same time I think it is possible to have the best of both worlds. You can make the availability to join, take part, organize or work within the union or not...but I think that if I'm the individual, I should make that choice. If my workplace is not within the terminal that an employer might have, and my name and address or phone number is going to be divulged to another person to indicate that I work there, I should have the ability to say “only with my signature”. I'll sign a card, which could be provided through the correspondence networks of the company itself. Once I have agreed to that, it can be turned over, but if I don't agree, it should not be turned over.

Mr. Patrick Martin: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Ms. Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation. Of those companies that belong to your organization, what percentage have their workers unionized?

Mr. Doug Moffatt: I can't give you an exact number, but the latest information that I have, which was valid until about October of last year—I don't think it's changed significantly—is that about 40% of the companies were organized, which I think accounted for about 65% of the employees.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Okay, so about 65%. Do you have any figures within your association of what the average hourly wage would be for your workers?

Mr. Doug Moffatt: I didn't bring them. We did do a survey. The average wage, interestingly enough, was slightly less than what a Canada Post employee makes, on average. You'll have to bear with me, because my memory isn't always as good as it used to be, but I think the average Canada Post wage was in the $18 to $22 range, and the average courier wage was in the $16 to $18 range.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Brown.

Mr. Johnston.

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

• 1140

Thank you for your presentation today. I see that some of your concerns are some of my concerns. The automatic certification is certainly a concern of ours, as is the right to privacy. I concur with the privacy commissioner that what seems to be missing here is the consent of the individuals. It's been compared to the voters list, which I think is a very poor comparison. But I'm sure that with my very persuasive presentations, I will get the amendments to this bill that you would like.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Johnston. Did I miss a question there?

Mr. Dale Johnston: It's a comment. They can comment if they like.

The Chairman: Okay.

The door has been opened for you to make a response pointing out to Mr. Johnston the error of his position, but I'll leave that to you, sir.

Mr. Doug Moffatt: Mr. Chairman, in 1988 I ran for a position in the House and was not successful, so it's far from me to disagree for somebody who just took a position similar to our own.

The Chairman: Very well put.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your taking the time to be here with us.

Members, we have one more presenter here. We are a few minutes ahead of time, so I will give you a five-minute break. I'll bring us back to order in five minutes.

• 1142

• 1146

The Chairman: We'll come back to order now.

Welcome, gentlemen. When I used to grade papers, size and weight generally got a high grade, so I think you're at the top of the list right now on this particular issue.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: We only have half an hour.

The Chairman: That's right.

As Brenda has pointed out, we have half an hour. You understand this process, as you've been here before. I would ask that you try to confine your opening remarks to about ten minutes. If you feel you have to go further, please do so, but it will constrain the amount of time for members' questions.

Mr. Dale Kinnear (Labour Analyst, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

Let me apologize for not making a complete copy of the brief available in French. Our preparations were on short notice and our translator was not able to respond in time. We can make the French language version available on receipt, if you so desire. As I mentioned, some of the documents in the brief are in French in the original form.

Appearing with me today is Mr. Joe Brennan, RCMP staff sergeant retired. Mr. Brennan has almost 40 years of service with the RCMP and was the divisional staff relations representative for eight years. Mr. Brennan can report on or answer questions concerning the employment realities of the RCMP and the deficiencies of the divisional staff relations representative program. Mr. Brennan is fluent in both official languages.

We appear today to speak to the changes to part I of the Canada Labour Code. Our presentation will focus on what is not in the bill.

The Canadian Police Association represents approximately 35,000 rank and file police officers represented by certified bargaining units. The Constitution Act of 1867 gives the provinces jurisdiction over matters of industrial relations that are not deemed federal works, undertakings or businesses. For this reason, most of our members are not affected by the changes to the code. Our railway police association members, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, are subject to part I of the code, although section 26 and subsection 27.(6) limit who may represent a railway policy bargaining unit.

Our purpose in attending today is to speak for CPA members not protected by part I of the code. The Canadian Police Association has 2,500 RCMP officers from four unsanctioned associations among our membership. Their employer does not recognize these associations. The main purpose of these unrecognized RCMP member associations is to obtain employee rights and collective bargaining privileges enjoyed elsewhere in the federal public service, and by all other Canadian police officers.

• 1150

The RCMP employs 15,000 police officers. They are the only police officers in this country denied the right to associate and to organize as a union. Other federal enforcement agencies employ officers sworn to federal enforcement duties and authorities that meet and in some circumstances exceed the authority of the RCMP officer. These enforcement officers are allowed to organize. These federal peace and police officers fulfil duties and responsibilities in matters of public interest and security beyond what the majority of RCMP officers employed by the federal government will ever uphold. The RCMP is by and large a domestic police force.

We refer to federal enforcement officers deployed at ports of entry, airports, embassies, diplomatic missions, and wherever a federal enforcement non-police presence is required. These officers are union members represented by a bargaining unit. Public interest and security have not suffered.

The security of perhaps this building and other buildings in the national capital area, and certainly the Centre, East, and West Blocks and the core of where the federal government is housed, is in the hands of officers who enjoy statutory collective bargaining rights, belong to a union, and contribute to the welfare of a membership. Collective organizations represent their interests in matters of industrial relations to seek neutral third-party arbitration of disputes arising out of the working relationship.

Parliament has granted the privilege to its own guardians. Why won't the government show the same respect to its national police force?

Federal enforcement officers, prison guards, parliamentary security, and other important and sensitive public security and regulatory federal enforcement obligations are performed by unionized employees. All municipal and provincial police officers in this country have statutory collective bargaining rights.

More than half, 52%, of the police officers employed in the RCMP are deployed by the federal government to provincial police and municipal police duties under contract to the provincial and municipal governments.

Fully 28% of RCMP officers are employed in federal policing responsibilities. Most of this federal policing responsibility is comparable to duties performed by unionized federal enforcement officers.

The remaining 20% are involved in administrative and law enforcement support functions.

The Solicitor General's department and RCMP senior command have hidden behind the public security and public interest excuse in every instance where federal labour law revision could have brought employee rights to the RCMP.

The Woods report in 1965 recommended access to collective bargaining for RCMP members, but the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Bill C-58, Bill C-30, and now Bill C-19 have failed to correct this obvious inequity in federal public service staff relations. The injustice has gone on far too long. Why has this bill not addressed the inequity?

Mr. Sims addressed the issue and made a recommendation that could have been the impetus for legislative change. You'll see that at appendix E in my report. The Supreme Court has ruled, in five major labour cases where charter scrutiny was sought, that the court would not get involved in the design of collective bargaining laws. The court decreed that the legislative process, federal and provincial, is the appropriate venue. Drastic reform must come through the legislative process, the academics tell us.

How do we get a legislative process such as this to respond and moreover to act? RCMP members and the CPA have appeared before this committee and other committees on many occasions. We lobbied Parliament four years in succession on the very issue of employee rights for the RCMP. Is anyone listening?

RCMP officers have sought the right since the code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act left them out in the cold. These officers have suffered punitive measures because of their efforts to organize and obtain collective bargaining rights from the Government of Canada. Transfers, RCMP discipline, suspension from duty, and biased and unfair treatment in the promotional process are some of the examples of retribution and punitive action these members suffered for their attempts to achieve democracy in their workplace. Mr. Brennan can tell you the horror stories.

There is no reason to deny RCMP members the right to organize and bargain collectively. Public sector collective bargaining has existed in Canada since 1943. Saskatchewan was the first to treat their employees fairly, followed closely by Ontario. By 1974 all governments, including the federal government, had gone beyond freedom of association for the public service and granted statutory collective bargaining rights to all but management-excluded employees.

In the course of developing this legislation, they dealt with all the issues that RCMP management fears about allowing their members to unionize. Public sector bargaining in Canada is characterized by stricter legal controls than operative in the private sector.

• 1155

Some of the factors in place in public sector regimes include: compulsory interest arbitration, some of which includes certain criteria for arbitrators to consider; cooling-off measures such as conciliation, mediation and fact finding, involved in some regimes; essential services designation; constraints on subjects that can be bargained; and rules about choice of a bargaining agent.

Neither the RCMP, nor the government for that matter, has to break new ground to facilitate collective bargaining for the RCMP.

While the Solicitor General's department and the RCMP management were in this Rip Van Winkle period of labour relations, others, including the federal government, developed sound legislation and collective bargaining regimes for police officer bargaining units. This is legislation that works. It is legislation that does not limit rights and freedoms. It is legislation and collective bargaining practices that have never compromised public security or public interest.

Another favourite ghoul that is trotted out by the Solicitor General and RCMP senior command is the right to strike. RCMP officers and their unrecognized associations that advocate for collective bargaining rights always insist they do not seek the right to strike.

The Solicitor General and RCMP senior command will protest that there are provinces where the municipal police officers have the right to strike. What would happen if we allowed RCMP officers to be unionized, and they had to be sent in at the request of a province or a municipality to maintain law and order when service is withheld by the municipal officers?

There is no mystery here. RCMP officers would go and police the affected area until such time as the municipal police employer or the province resolves the strike. Yes, the employer resolves the strike. The employer has ultimate control over the right to strike.

In all jurisdictions provincial legislation governs the right for the police to strike. Only Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan statutes afford the police a right to strike over compensation. There is no unfettered right in either of these jurisdictions. Both incorporate some type of cooling-off or notice and permission provisions that prevent public security being jeopardized.

Provincial or federal legislation can address this fear. Police officers are sworn to uphold their duty and the law. Police officers understand the line between their profession and their union activity.

As previously mentioned, the individual provinces control the right of police officers to strike. Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia could remove the right to strike with the stroke of a pen. Our police association members in these two provinces are on record with their respective governments that they would prefer binding interest arbitration and they would forgo the current arrangement for a mutually agreed-upon system of neutral, third-party binding interest arbitration.

Their political masters are satisfied with the status quo. This is no surprise. Both jurisdictions are noted for hard-nosed bargaining tactics. The right to strike in public sector collective bargaining is not to the employees' advantage. The employees must withhold services if they cannot negotiate a satisfactory agreement and they must settle the dispute at the negotiating table.

The employees and the employees organization will bear the wrath of a public not being served during a strike, as evidenced in the Ontario teachers' strike last fall. Additionally, the employer will save money by not having to pay the salaries, as evidenced in the Ontario teachers' strike and the first-ever Ontario public service strike in 1996.

The last police strike in Nova Scotia was in 1989. The RCMP was on duty in Dartmouth before the strike began. The Police Association of Nova Scotia did not interfere with the RCMP.

The last Saskatchewan police association to be in a strike position was in the city of Saskatoon in 1994. The RCMP was never called in. The Saskatoon Police Association did not withdraw their services; they responded to calls for service. The public did not get mad. There was no loss of wages for the association members and no saving or benefit to the City of Saskatoon. The matter was resolved at the negotiating table.

The fact that the right to strike still exists in the Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia statutes should tell us that public security is not an issue in police unionism anywhere but the RCMP.

The RCMP bargaining unit and municipal and provincial police bargaining units can co-exist. Their police employer agencies co-exist in spite of sometimes conflicting jurisdictions, legislation, policies, practices and interests.

The unions follow suit as a matter of course. To our knowledge, no municipal or provincial police officer, association member, or official has ever been disciplined for police association activity that adversely affected or compromised the security of the public.

• 1200

Simply put, police associations do not mix police work and union business to the detriment of those they're sworn to serve. Show us an example of an unlawful act by a police association that compromised public safety. We can provide 50:1 examples of association activity that enhanced public safety and contributed to the public good.

As mentioned, the changes to the code in Bill C-19 have little effect on the majority of our members. You may wonder why the CPA fights so hard for so few. That is the way of workplace democracy. In recent months our vigilance has been steeled by government action impacting our municipal police membership. We are referring to the RCMP contract policing.

The lack of RCMP employee rights and labour statute protection now infringes on rights previously enjoyed by municipal officers in municipal police agencies taken over under the authority of section 20 of the RCMP Act. Statutory exemption of the RCMP from the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act negates successor rights protection for the municipal member and the municipal police bargaining unit. Collective bargaining rights and bargaining unit status and protection previously enjoyed as a municipal entity under provincial statute are quashed by the RCMP contract policing arrangements. How can this possibly be fair?

The lunacy of the situation becomes all the more apparent and certainly more obvious when you consider that subsection 20(4) allows for the absorption of officers from the agency taken over by the RCMP. If there is something foul or nefarious in a unionized police officer, how do they redeem themselves and receive absolution when taken on by the RCMP? The RCMP has nothing to fear from unionization.

Noted Ontario arbitrator, Professor Richard Jackson of Queen's University School of Business, best describes the reality of police associations. Jackson has been involved in hundreds of police and firefighter arbitration hearings, both rights and interest, and he says:

In a sense, then, in terms of their collective conservatism, their strong focus on professionalism and brotherhood, their eschewal of traditional union bargaining strategies, the unusual position of management, and the military tradition of both services, the natures of firefighter and police associations set them somewhat apart from the rest of the labour movement; this is particularly so for the police associations. Indeed, in terms of their behaviour and outlook, police and firefighter associations may be more accurately compared to craft guilds, as they used to exist or to professional organizations as they currently exist.

And there is again a quotation from Jackson, where he says:

While police and firefighter associations, together, stand apart from the rest of the labour movement, firefighter associations stand in contrast to police associations in the sense that they are more union-like.

In the Middleton report, A Study Report on Police Associations, at appendix C you will find the reasons why the RCMP has denied employee rights all these years. You may find it surprising that an incident in the United States in 1918-19 is the main lingering factor that keeps these government employees in the Dark Ages.

The Boston police strike haunts the RCMP to this day. It was another era, another time, another country. If you read this report, you will find justification for a police association. You will find recommendations similar to what Sims suggested in his report. It is a sad state of affairs that the RCMP, and moreover the Government of Canada, cannot get beyond a single incident that occurred 80 years ago.

The Boston police strike of 1918-19 has no relevance to the RCMP of 1998. The RCMP, post-MacDonald commission, is not the keeper of the realm it was once held out to be. The RCMP is now truly a domestic police force, a police force for hire, not much different from any other police agency in this country in terms of responsibility for public security and public interest.

We realize that this committee may not incorporate drastic changes into this bill to correct the inequities we have identified. We would be very pleased if you did. However, as a committee you can still do the honourable thing and assist the legislative process that the Supreme Court cites as the means and the appropriate venue for change.

This committee can, by written report, correspond with the government and ask that the inequity be addressed and corrected through appropriate means. You can direct the report to the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP and ask them to bring the RCMP into the 20th century before the 20th century ends.

• 1205

Finally, you will see a report and finding of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations included in our brief at appendix D. As you may be aware, that committee made a bold move and recommended sections 56 and 57 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations be revoked without delay.

These regulations imposed what the committee defined as unconstitutional restriction on RCMP members' protected rights and freedoms. Many of the Canadian Police Association concerns on RCMP officers being denied the right to associate and organize are expressed in the scrutiny of regulations committee report to the Houses.

The committee criticized the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the RCMP for their tardiness in failing to correct an inequity and a violation of rights and freedoms that the Supreme Court had identified in Osbourne v. Canada.

As you may know, the fundamental issue of freedom of association for RCMP officers will be before the Supreme Court in late 1998 or early 1999. If the legislative process will not act to ensure fair treatment for dedicated employees of the Government of Canada, perhaps the court will. If the government and the legislative process will not correct this ridiculous situation and it must be left to the court, so be it. However, it will be a sad commentary on the government of a free and democratic society.

You may have representatives from the DSRR program appear before this committee. They will tell you that all is well in the RCMP, that the members do not want collective bargaining rights. You may not know that it is an offence under the RCMP Act for a DSRR member to:

engage in activities that...promote alternate programs in conflict with the nonunion status of the DSRR Program or may undermine the credibility or effectiveness of the DSRR program.

The only thing they can do is come in and say good things about it.

What would be the answer if union certification could proceed as provided for in part I of the Canada Labour Code, and if the organizers were afford unfair labour practice protection and unfettered access to the membership?

Please do not take the word of a company union that all is well in the RCMP workplace. You have the power to correct the situation. Do you have the will?

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. Given the length of time the presentation took, I'll ask each member to pose their question, and we'll move on from there.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Before asking my question I would like to point out that we have here another witness with a presentation that is almost all in English, except for some documents that were originally bilingual. It is especially disappointing, Mr. Chairman, since this association, for which I have much sympathy, represents members from Quebec who are francophone and since the Bloc Québécois has always supported the demands of this association. This is what is the most frustrating.

But let us get back to the essentials, to the reason we are here today, labour relations and the Canada Labour Code. I would like to ask Mr. Kinnear about the experience of his members since, if I understand correctly, you are not legally recognized as an association.

What does it mean in everyday life? How do you deal with your employer in terms of human and labour relations? You denounce the fact that the RCMP, as an employer, is both judge and party in all respects. Could you provide some examples taken from everyday life?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Kinnear, I'm going to take questions from every member, so if you could make a list, then you can respond to them all, given the shortness of time. I'm sorry, I should have clarified that.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'd be interested in knowing, perhaps of Mr. Brennan, some specific examples of workers who were disciplined or otherwise ran into adverse consequences for trying to get collective bargaining rights for the RCMP.

Also, have you brought this matter up with the ILO, as we recently did with the Harris government here in Ontario?

• 1210

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Kinnear, if I understand your presentation, which certainly wasn't ambiguous I'm sure, in your analysis you are asking for the right to accept arbitration as an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism and not the right to strike. The Sims task force held out the possibility that the submissions that were made at the time certainly warranted further study, further consideration by the government.

You indicated that the court case will be held later this year. Can you enlighten me on what follow up, if any, has occurred since the Sims task force in terms of changes to the code that you're asking for in terms of the right to organize? Clearly, it was recommended. There seems to have been a gap here. What has happened?

I personally found your arguments quite persuasive and I'd be curious to know what has happened. And if anything hasn't happened, would you comment on perhaps the reasons for that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to tag on to Mr. Wilfert's questions. I was curious about whether or not you're asking for the right to strike or arbitration. In answering Mr. Wilfert's question you'll be answering mine as well.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

Let me also pose a question as the son of an RCMP staff sergeant and as someone who thinks our current Solicitor General is a fairly decent guy. On page 7 of your brief you comment several times on the Solicitor General. I'd be interested to know whether the current Solicitor General responded or offered an opinion on this matter.

So, Mr. Kinnear, there's a few questions for you.

Mr. Dale Kinnear: Thank you.

Starting off with the first question, the best examples of the deficiency created by the lack of collective bargaining rights and Canada Labour Code protection probably has to do with the area of grievances.

Mr. Brennan and I were discussing this just this morning. Because there is no agreement, the practice, or what applies to an RCMP officer, goes by either the manual of administration, the regulations, or the policies and practices of the RCMP. Those are subject to the interpretation of the immediate supervisor or the commanding officer as to whether that person gets a promotion or is entitled to overtime for a particular duty.

The absence of a proper grievance procedure leaves the discretion on that entirely in the hands of the management of the RCMP. There is no neutral third-party person to sit down and figure out what the parties meant or intended when they struck that particular clause in the collective agreement.

As some of you well know, there's quite an industry in Ottawa and indeed around the country in labour circles for people trying to figure out just exactly what a particular section or clause means in a collective agreement, whether public sector of private sector. The lack of the agreement itself, the lack of the terms and conditions worked out by management and an employee on what will be applied in a particular situation, whether it has to do with compensation or promotion, as the case may be, is probably the most obvious.

In these situations, if the member is denied in-house with the RCMP, or even if the in-house grievance system in fact agrees with the member, the commissioner can still overturn that. The commissioner has the complete control over that circumstance. The only recourse to the member is to go to the Federal Court. And as you can appreciate, that is very expensive, very time-consuming, and it pits the individual member against the might of the RCMP and indeed the federal government.

Mr. Brennan can give you an example of that perhaps when he speaks to the next question in regards to some examples of retribution. I'll let him answer that, but I'll deal with the International Labour Organisation question, because we just had some dealings with that the other day.

Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organisation, which was adopted and accepted by Canada, has a clause in it, I believe, at section 9, although I can't quote it chapter and verse. It says something to the effect that the police and the military can be subject to the rules of the country, whereas in the ILO situation applied to the unionization of the agriculture workers in Ontario, in the ILO protections there is a clause that lets them off the hook for the police and the army.

• 1215

Perhaps I'll go through the rest of the questions, and then I'll let Joe deal at the last with some of those examples.

As far as the court case that's pending is concerned, which would be Delisle v. Canada (Attorney General), it is proceeding along as fast as those things can. That was an action brought before the courts by Mr. Delisle almost 10 years ago.

As far as the changes since the Sims task force report are concerned, there haven't been any. The situation remains the same. It slipped through the cracks we can only guess in this particular piece of legislation. In terms of why nothing has happened, I would say the will is not there in the RCMP. The will is not there, indeed, in the Solicitor General's department.

Probably the best example of that is the Osbourne case that I referred to in my presentation. It dealt with political activity for the federal public service. The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations started the ball rolling to have those sections struck down in the RCMP Act.

I believe it's two years or more since the Supreme Court took that ruling in the Osbourne case. So the failure to act, the dragging of the feet, the losing it in the bureaucratic shuffle, the political activity rights in Osbourne...the same thing continues to plague the RCMP in terms of collective bargaining rights. It may take the court to settle it once and for all.

The quick answer to your question is because RCMP management doesn't want it. They can drag their feet; they can slow it down. As to why it slipped through the cracks in this particular piece of legislation when Mr. Sims addressed it in his report, it is better for this committee to answer that question than for me. We are not involved in the process of drafting or striking the bill. We can only come in at this stage of the situation.

In answer to Mr. Johnston's question, no, RCMP members do not seek the right to strike. Neutral, third-party binding interest arbitration is the method that is applied to 96% of the police officers in this country. That's what RCMP officers would be looking for. I gave you the examples of the two locations in Canada that still allow it. If the government chose to remove it, they could.

Mr. Alcock, we're probably safe in saying we haven't had any kind of response from the Solicitor General in terms of some of these things. He tells us it's the responsibility of the commissioner. That was the answer we had from Mr. Gray for many reasons, that it was completely in the hands of the commissioner.

When you look at the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, in the appendix in my report you'll see that this committee criticized the Solicitor General of the day, Mr. Gray, for his tardiness, and the Attorney General for his tardiness in responding to the Osbourne decision.

Whether it's by confusion or by design, a little convenience arises out of the fact that the Solicitor General can say that's completely in the hands of the commissioner. The commissioner can say it's completely in the hands of the Solicitor General. It gets lost in the shuffle or the process. It's going to take some type of action or some type of a wake-up call from the parliamentary process to get these people on track and legitimately study the question.

You will see at appendix C in the report, a report commissioned in 1974 for the commissioner of the day, Commissioner Nadon. He had an inspector in the RCMP by the name of Middleton go on a fact-finding mission in Canada and indeed in the United States in regard to police associations. If you read that report, you will see identical recommendations to what Sims made 20 years later. They looked at it; they studied the feasibility of it. The reaction to Middleton's suggestions is the same as the reaction to Sims' report, in the RCMP mindset.

• 1220

I find the report to be a very objective report, although it was written for RCMP management on the benefits of a police association and how they differ from other unions. I think it's only in about the last 10% of the document that he realizes he's sending it off to the commissioner and he puts the management slant on it, if you will, but I think anyone who reads it objectively will find in it the benefits of and the justification for a police association.

It's something that has dragged on for many years, and my gut feeling is that it has to do with the militaristic tradition, which is hard to shake out of any police force.

You may laugh when I refer to the Boston police strike of 1918-19. Everything I have read tells me that is probably one of the main issues. Indeed, the Boston police strike of 1918-19 continues to haunt organized police labour in the United States to this day. That one single incident was commented on by, I believe, Wilson, who was the Governor of Massachusetts of the day, or perhaps Coolidge.... Anyway, you'll see the report refers to comments by Coolidge as the Governor, Wilson as the President, or vice versa, about how appalled they were with it.

That whole issue, by the way, had nothing to do with compensation. It had to do with not being allowed to form a union. That's what the strike was about. Over half the police officers were fired, and I guess it had some similarities to the air traffic controllers situation in the States a couple of years ago.

I encourage you to read it, and you'll see the mindset of 1974.

I think some of this frustration at the time had to do with the fact that they were excluded from the code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and I think it came to a boil at that time. They threw them a bone with the DSRR system. Our reports are that at the end of this week they're supposed to get an announcement on their pay increase, the first increase in a number of years. My gut feeling is they'll throw them a bone again and will do what some people might refer to as “buy the allegiance for another few years through the salary cheque”.

I'll turn it over now to Sergeant Brennan. He can deal directly with—

The Chairman: Mr. Kinnear, I'm afraid we are ten minutes over time.

Mr. Brennan, do you have a succinct example you would like to mention?

Mr. J.W. Brennan (Canadian Police Association): Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman.

I've been retired now for a little bit over a year. I had 39 years, 88 days of service. In my retirement I've found that I've had to put in grievances. Yesterday I filed a motion in Federal Court on one of my grievances, which had been turned down at level two. One of my benefits, holiday leave—they will not even address the problem. I'm trying to figure out what to do with that one.

I have another benefit question in front of the external review committee. It's there because our employer, Treasury Board, does not give us a pay and benefits package we can relate to. Our pay and benefits are marked down in the administration manual by the RCMP, and they make their own interpretation of it. Unfortunately, we find out after that the interpretation does not reflect the spirit and intent of the Treasury Board directives.

Have things changed, Mr. Alcock, since I joined in 1957? Yes. In those days members were sent to serve out their sentences by digging cellars and locking up the cells at night.

Today we have a different method of taking care of people who disturb...or cause change. Today, as a modern force, we hold the member's family up to ransom. We suspend members without pay. For what crime? Well, for such repugnant breaches of the RCMP Act as running for elected office.

Staff Sergeant Delisle will expand upon this on April 1, which I think is a well-chosen day. He spent 18 months without pay. The case was dropped in our orderly room because of an appearance of bias. Well, his bosses, the same ones who brought the charges, were the ones who were doing the evaluations and making the recommendations to the judge sitting on the board.

• 1225

Was he allowed to return to his elected duties? No, no. Instead, the commanding officer got orders from headquarters, another election was called, and unfortunately for force management, Delisle was re-elected with nearly 80% of the vote.

You don't have much time. I could talk to you for hours. I have all kinds of examples.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Brennan.

Mr. Joe Brennan: I'd just like to make a closing remark. I don't want you to look upon me as a bitter old man. I'm a bit older than when I joined the force. I enjoyed my service very well. The majority of the members are good and dedicated to the upholding and protecting of the public. I made up my mind a long time ago that when you're around horses as I've been, well, once in a while you run into a horse's ass.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Yes, around here you always have to check to see which end of the horse is speaking.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your presentation today.

For the information of members, that concludes this round of hearings. We will reconvene promptly at 3.25 and begin the hearing at 3.30 this afternoon.

The meeting is adjourned.