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]

Tuesday, March 31, 1998

• 1531

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm happy to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resource Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities as we continue our public hearings into Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, part I, and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Our first witnesses this afternoon are representatives of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Mr. David Church and Mr. Bob Elder. I believe Mr. David Church will begin with a presentation.

They have brought copies of their presentations in both French and English but not sufficient copies, so they are being copied and will be handed out to you as soon as they arrive. Thank you.

Mr. Church.

Mr. David Church (Director, Transportation, Recycling and Purchasing, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for giving the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association the opportunity to speak to you today on Bill C-19, government legislation to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code.

I'm Dave Church and I'm the director of transportation, recycling and purchasing for CPPA. With me today is Bob Elder, who is manager of transportation for Weldwood of Canada Limited in British Columbia. In Vancouver, B.C., Mr. Elder is chairman of the association's transportation and distribution section. Weldwood operates 11 mills in Alberta and British Columbia.

When we advised the committee of our request to appear here, we indicated we would also have Mr. Marcel Matteau, who is the senior vice-president, industrial relations, for Abitibi Consolidated, on our panel today. Unfortunately, Mr. Matteau was called out of town. He's up in Kenogami for a meeting with people at the mill up there.

We have brought with us copies of our submission in both official languages, and I understand copies will be available. I understood we were to bring five copies in each official language and that's what we did. I apologize for not bringing more.

CPPA has serious concerns with proposed subsection 87.7(1) of the bill. If enacted, this provision will ensure that grain continues to move through the port during a legal strike or lockout, while the products of our industry are held pending resolution of the dispute. We believe proposed subsection 87.7(1) is neither balanced nor fair. It grants preferential treatment to one industry at the expense of all other industries.

Canada is an exporting nation and the forest products industry is an exporting industry. We are the largest contributor to Canada's trade balance, and to sell our products in the marketplace we require an efficient, low-cost, and dependable transportation system.

We have two major reasons to believe this provision, proposed subsection 87.7(1), should be amended. The first is a matter of principle. Proposed subsection 87.7(1) is in direct conflict with the principles of fair and equitable treatment for all industries. It will inhibit and reduce the competitiveness of Canada's exporting industries. It is also inconsistent with international practices and approaches of Canada's trading partners.

Second is a matter of logistics. While this provision will apply to all ports that handle grain, its greatest impact will be in British Columbia. In eastern Canada, if one port is closed, for example, the port of Montreal, there are many others, such as Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Philadelphia, and New York, that will remain open and be available to move our products. In the event of a labour disruption at B.C. ports, virtually all ports will be closed to non-grain traffic. However, the balance in labour management negotiations will be tilted in favour of the unions, and we know this will prolong the disruption of service at the port.

The forest products industry is the second-largest user of B.C. ports behind the coal industry. If B.C. ports close, the transportation infrastructure is such that the products of our industry will not move offshore. Markets could be lost and customers will look to other suppliers to provide the products we sell. This will have a negative impact on the competitiveness of our industry.

• 1535

In the fall of last year, as part of a coalition of employers associations, we developed an alternative proposal to proposed subsection 87.7(1), which was widely distributed to members of Parliament and to cabinet ministers. It is guided by the following principles: the legislation must be fair and equal treatment for all businesses affected by the dispute or potential dispute at a Canadian port; the legislation must ensure that any decision to intervene in a collective bargaining dispute is based on complete and compelling information; and the legislation should provide the minister with a range of options to respond to the nature of the specific dispute.

The minister would be empowered to appoint a special adviser or advisory panel for the purpose of monitoring collective bargaining that could affect the operation of a Canadian port. The special adviser would be required to establish contact, not only with the employers and unions involved in the operation of the port, but also with major businesses dependent on the port and with provincial authorities responsible for industry, trade, and finance in the affected province. The mandate of the special adviser would be to regularly inform the minister of the status of negotiations and the anticipated effect of any work stoppage in the port.

Within a specified period prior to any industrial action, the special adviser would release a report describing the anticipated consequences of a work stoppage on the users of the port and on the economy. Based on the minister's assessment of any adverse effect on the economy, in the public interest, the minister would have discretion to intervene in a number of different ways including declaring a cooling-off period within which no industrial action could take place; determining what limitations, if any, would apply to the exercise of the right to strike or lock out; appointing a mediator to assist in the resolution of a dispute; and requiring the parties to submit all or part of the issues in dispute to a final and binding dispute resolution procedure such as final offer selection.

We believe this proposal strikes a reasonable balance for all the users and stakeholders.

I'll now ask Mr. Bob Elder to say a few words on the impact of this provision on his company.

Mr. Robert E. Elder (Manager, Transportation, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for welcoming us here today. I did not prepare a written document but indeed I thought what I would like to share today are some of the thoughts of a transportation manager who is on the west coast. I've been with Weldwood for the last six years. Weldwood operates, as David said, 11 operations in western Canada, two pulp mills and 9 lumber mills. Prior to joining Weldwood I was manager of transportation for a large eastern-based company, and I held that position for nearly 20 years.

Later on I'd like to touch on the differences in geography between eastern and western Canada.

The business climate today dictates that we have to service global markets. Customer demands include quality and on-time delivery, and we also need to ensure that there's an uninterrupted supply of product. As a service manager, 60% of the time of my department is spent on meeting these objectives and goals. It's a task we take very seriously and one that we need to do each day. If you cannot guarantee reliability then you risk losing a customer.

Proposed subsection 87.7(1) creates a huge concern. Prolonging a labour dispute and enabling labour to fund a strike by handling any product and keeping it going does not favour a quick resolution. Whether the exemption is for grain, potash, coal or indeed the forest products, the results are the same: prolonged strikes. East versus west is a big issue in regard to the presentation I make here today. As somebody who worked in eastern Canada, I know you certainly have a set of conditions. In eastern Canada we're on the 401, we have trucks, we are also capable of going to to U.S. ports, and, as David mentioned before, when a strike takes place at the port of Montreal it does not necessarily mean you have the same concerns or conditions applied at the ports of Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Boston or Philadelphia.

More than 90% of the business we handle at Weldwood is captive to rail. It's not a concern. We work closely with the railways, but certainly a prolonged strike means there will be, in our opinion, certainly embargoes to cars that are going in for the export and indeed car shortages. Anything that can interrupt our ability to service our customers and supply in a global market is a threat. When we turn off the tap to a market we chance losing their segment of our business forever.

• 1540

We cannot stop shipping to the export market for a month and expect our customers to understand why we've interrupted their supply. Customers today seek out alternatives, which is their right, and if they're not available to them in Canada, they will find them in other parts of the world.

At a time when the forest industry is facing enormous threats, this legislation poses a threat to all resource-based industry, including our own. The amount of harm that the passage of this legislation can do is still unknown. If it remains unchanged, we wonder what harm it will do to our industry and to those other resource-based industries.

Thank you for your time.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much.

Did you want to add anything, Mr. Church?

Mr. David Church: No, that's the end of our formal presentation. We're more than willing to answer the questions you may have.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): That's great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Johnston, are you ready?

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): You betcha. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation. You've told us that in parts of Canada other than the west coast you would have alternative ways to ship your product. Would you have no other alternatives in the west, such as the Pacific ports? Would you have, for instance, Seattle or Portland open as an option to you? If so, how much of an economic disadvantage would that put you in?

Mr. Bob Elder: From an economic point of view, of course, you have the currency difference, to start, which imposes nearly 30%, even on a currency exchange rate. I think it's more the availability of service in the Pacific northwest. We've already seen the difficulties of the Union Pacific Railway and the Burlington Northern Railroad, which provide services into the port of Seattle.

Trucking is not a huge option for companies located north of Vancouver. If you're located in Vancouver, you probably have access to some of the Schneiders and Hunts that travel the 401 highway, but certainly we use a lot of ma and pa operations, which have a limited amount of capacity. We use trucking more on an emergency basis than for long haulage.

In the last strike that hit the port, after four days there was nearly an 18-day backup into the port of Seattle. So we've looked at that as an option, but it's never proven to be very practical.

Mr. David Church: The other point I'd like to make as well is that what you also need are forest products terminals. You have to have places at these ports to be able to hold the rolls or the pulp for loading onto the vessel. Many of these ports down the west coast do not have the forest products terminals, neither the number nor the size, that the port of Vancouver and the other B.C. ports do.

So while it's also a question of logistics, it's the availability of the service that the port of Vancouver can provide.

Mr. Dale Johnston: You also mentioned that you would favour some type of dispute settlement mechanism. Since there is none in this legislation, do you foresee the need for Parliament to intervene in work stoppages and still have to legislate parties back to work at some future date should there be a work stoppage?

Mr. David Church: I think we have experience with the final offer selection procedure. As transportation people, we're knowledgeable about the Canada Transportation Act and its predecessor, the National Transportation Act, both of which have final offer arbitration procedures.

The experience, from my knowledge of those two provisions in the acts, is that it forces negotiations. If it's final offer selection, where one side puts its offer and the railway puts its offer on the table, boy, you want to make sure you've got your best offer, and the other side wants to make sure it's got its best offer. Because if an arbitrator has to choose one or the other, you may very well lose, and lose big time.

So the benefit to such a procedure, which is one of a range of options the minister would have, is that at least it will force the two parties to come together and try to reach a settlement. It may very well result in a strike. You may not be able to reach an agreement. But final offer arbitration is certainly one way that would minimize the number of labour disruptions at the port.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you.

As you may or may not know, in my past life I was a farmer. In fact, I still am a farmer. So any provision within reason that would make sure grain is unimpeded in its route from the farm gate to the port and out of the port would be something I would support. However, you brought up an interesting point. I think I heard you say that the exemption for grain in proposed subsection in 87.7(1) of this bill will have the effect of funding and prolonging the strike.

• 1545

Would you like to tell us just how you see that happening?

Mr. Robert Elder: I was going to say we share a common history because prior to coming to British Columbia I was a farmer. I had a small farm outside of Huntingdon, Quebec, so I understand where you're coming from.

Our concern is that regardless of whether anybody was handling any product, be it coal, potash or forest products, if you're going to allow the labour force to even handle 30% of the product, they're going to create income that is going to fund the strike and make it last longer.

Traditionally the grain has been stopped in working to resolve the issue. Whether we agree with that or not, it has brought a lot quicker resolution. We're just concerned that any product that's left outside of that would allow people to work and would just keep it going longer, and it's the length of the strike that worries us more than the result. Just how long are you going to be able to keep that strike going, and when that strike is over what impact is it going to have to the infrastructure?

A ten-day strike would mean you're probably at a 30-day infrastructure with those cars that are in an embargo. Every car of every product is going to be sitting on a siding somewhere, and those cars aren't going to move until that strike is resolved. So if the strike was to go for 15 days, it's probably going to be 45 days before you end up with enough equipment to go back to the marketplace to ship export after that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Based on your experience, can you tell me what is the average length of time, when the pulp and paper industry goes on strike, they stay out on strike?

Mr. Robert Elder: I have to be careful here because we at Weldwood have not had a strike at Hinton, Alberta since its inception. We are in negotiations right now and feel successful that we as a company have not....

Fletcher Challenge—and I'm not here to speak on behalf of them—have indeed been out on strike for six or seven months. I guess Mr. Whitehead would be better able to talk about the impact to the industry. Certainly that in itself is a prolonged strike, right?

Mr. Robert Nault: But the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association must have some statistics based on the average of how long its strikes last. I'm trying to find out if in fact the average strikes in the CPPA are longer than the strikes that have occurred on the west coast. I'm quite sure in my own mind, if I think back, that when there are strikes, the average is much longer in your industry than it is on the west coast, if you average them out over, say, the last 10 years, simply because we don't historically legislate your industry back to work. Correct?

Mr. Robert Elder: That's correct. I think the only thing I'd say to that—again I'm not an expert on the labour side of it—is that the impact of Fletcher Challenge is that it probably creates more opportunities for people who produce the same product. If there's a shortage in the marketplace, we as Canadians are picking up a part of it. I would assume that the balance of it is being picked up by someone offshore who is making similar products to what Fletcher Challenge does, and that's harmful to the Canadian economy. As for the statistics, I don't know.

Mr. David Church: I'm not sure we have statistics within CPPA. I can certainly verify to see whether or not we do have any, but as Bob alluded to, if there's one company, that's one or two mills that are on strike. There are a number of other mills that produce the same product, either in Canada or offshore, that will be picking up the tonnage in supplying those customers. That's the risk you take.

Our industry will be affected by this provision because there is no other option on the west coast other than to use the B.C. ports. The infrastructure isn't there to handle the volume of tonnage that will be moving to the port or looking for alternative markets, and if we can't supply those customers in offshore markets when the ports in British Columbia are shut down, other customers will step in.

• 1550

Mr. Robert Nault: No, I understand that. Whenever there's a strike and the collective bargaining process breaks down, certainly people get hurt in one fashion or another. Corporations do tend to economically get affected by it. I don't think we're arguing that point.

My point was that when you look at the average length of days lost in particular industries.... In yours, I'm surprised you won't know the average.

The point I'm making is that the Government of Canada has been arbitrarily changing the collective bargaining process on the west coast for years now. What you're asking us to do is to go back to that process. Your alternative proposal does basically, in my mind, nothing more than the status quo. In fact, it stays under the umbrella of forcing the government to legislate people back to work. That's fine if that's the option you choose. It's not the option that most people who are interested in collective bargaining would choose.

So I don't see this as an advantage. You say the advantage of your proposal is that the minister would be satisfied before intervention is necessary. So in fact we already have that. Even if we passed proposed subsection 87.7(1), you would still have the option of the Government of Canada stepping in and legislating people back to work.

If someone changed the rules of the game, which is what this particular clause does, and then there was a prolonged strike on the west coast, would you not think the pressure would be to some extent fundamentally as bad for the government? The government would be forced somewhere down the line, if this were a prolonged strike, to have to legislate people back to work at some point. That's my first question, Madam Chairman.

The second one is if in fact this were to work—we don't know because we haven't tried it yet—then it might bring collective bargaining back to the west coast, which at this point doesn't exist in anyone's mind, I don't think. The only thing that does exist is that people hide under the knowledge, both in labour and management, that the government is going to move in and legislate you back to work anyway, so why bargain in good faith?

So those are my two questions. I'm trying to get a sense of why you would not be willing to try this simply because it's better than what you have now.

Mr. Robert Elder: Not to argue against you, but to make a point, by allowing the labour to continue during this protest, aren't you going to enable them to use time in their favour? They're going to use that to negotiate a settlement. When would the government step in? If they're able to fund professionally through what they call the war chest, if they can continue to fund, why would they not continue that process? How long is this process going to take without really doing harm to the rest of the industries that are impacted by the exemption?

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Elder, I'd like to understand what you're saying about building up the fund. The Government of Canada doesn't legislate people back to work because labour has built a big fund to stay on strike; government legislates back because we think it does severe damage to the economy. We can't afford to allow things to continue for an extended period of time.

That's why railroads don't last more than a week or so. It shuts the whole country's flow of goods, and we are an exporting nation. We don't look to see what do the unions and the railway have as far as a war chest. That makes no difference to the Government of Canada. We would prefer to stay out of the collective bargaining process. So I'm not sure I understand what your argument is there.

Mr. David Church: Maybe I can explain it this way. If grain continues to move as this provision would allow, there will be enough work for those people in the longshoring industry to handle the grain to be able to rotate that work through the longshoring employees. So they will be able to earn income, get perhaps some strike pay, keep working, and share that work among all the employees.

We believe that's now going to tilt the balance in favour of the unions with respect to the negotiations. You alluded to the fact that if the railways go on strike, then everybody's affected the same way. What we think is that this provision gives the minister more options than what currently exists. It provides for a cooling-off period. It provides for mediation. It also applies for a final offer selection procedure.

• 1555

So we think if those procedures or some of those procedures are used or are available to them, that is going to ensure, if you want, meaningful negotiations that perhaps, as you say, have not occurred in the past. It will force both sides to the bargaining table to try to reach an agreement.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mr. Nault.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): I would just like to ask the witnesses whether they think that the preferential treatment, to use their term, has been given to the grain industry because of its economic impact or because of the perishable nature of the goods in question, namely grains.

[English]

Mr. David Church: We're not exactly sure why it has been given to the grain industry. We don't think the grain is any more perishable than other products that are out there, pulp and paper. There are now sophisticated grain elevators and rail cars and terminals, and so on, that will hold that grain in a saleable state, so to speak.

We're not sure what the reason for the provision is, other than perhaps the belief that it's the grain industry that forces the government to respond in the event of a labour disruption. But I can assure that if there is a labour disruption in the port, our industry is as vocal as other industries in wanting a resolution to the dispute. As Bob has alluded to, it causes problems at the mill and it causes the back-up and embargo of equipment, which essentially either forces the mills to start looking for alternative markets south of the border or it forces you to start warehousing the pulp and paper in warehouses around British Columbia.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: If you were to discover that this privilege resulted from the application of the 1867 Constitution, and that an amendment would be required in order to correct the problem, given what we know about the process for amending the Constitution, would you feel like fighting this battle for very long?

[English]

Mr. David Church: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Last week a witness from the grain industry told us, and many of us did not know, that this preferential treatment resulted from the 1867 Constitution. Apparently there is a provision in the Constitution that the grain industry must be protected. In order to correct or change this, we would need a constitutional amendment, with everything that implies.

I am therefore wondering whether you would feel like fighting this type of battle for a constitutional amendment, together with the other industries that have appeared before us to request similar changes.

[English]

Mr. David Church: I'm not a constitutional expert. We have heard that argument raised, that grain is provided an exemption in the Constitution, but we don't think it's applicable in today's world.

We're an exporting industry; the grain industry is an exporting industry. We don't think there should be any preferential treatment granted to any industry in Canada. We should all be treated equally. As an exporting nation, we're all part of the requirement to sell our products offshore. So I don't think the reference in the Constitution is applicable in today's marketplace.

I hope that answers your question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Are you particularly attacking the fact that the grain industry is protected and enjoys special status, or is your basic desire to be able to continue to operate, even during a strike? Are you critical of the fact that the privilege is granted to the grain industry alone, or would you like a similar provision to apply to all businesses?

[English]

Mr. David Church: I think we would be here if the exemption was given to any other industry, including the forest products industry, as Mr. Elder suggested.

We don't believe by granting an exemption to one particular industry you're going to solve the problem of labour disruptions at the port; you're just going to exacerbate the problem because of the limitations on the infrastructure and the ability to move product through the port.

• 1600

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau. Thank you, Mr. Church and Mr. Elder. I have no other requests for questions, so I guess you're finished. We will ask our other witnesses to come forward.

Thank you for coming and giving us your testimony and supplying us with your package.

Mr. Bob Elder: Thank you very much.

Mr. David Church: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): You're welcome.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to introduce to you Sylvie Graton, who is a lawyer with the firm of Ogilvy Renault of Montreal.

Ms. Graton.

[Translation]

Ms. Sylvie Graton (Lawyer, Ogilvy Renault Law Office, Conseil du patronat du Québec): Thank you.

On behalf of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the CPQ, which I am representing here today, I too would like to thank the committee members for giving us an opportunity to comment on Bill C-19.

You have already received our brief, which is quite short. It focusses only on certain specific points in the bill. I will come back to some of these specific points.

However, I think it is important to highlight some comments made in the foreword to our brief. I am referring to the last two paragraphs, in which we say that the CPQ is well aware of the fact that the bill is the product of many consultations which took place over many months, and that a bill had been introduced earlier.

Consequently, in its brief, the CPQ decided not to repeat its traditional positions on a number of labour relations matters. However, it is clear that the fact that some matters are not discussed in our brief does not mean that we support a number of the amendments proposed in the bill.

My comments today will therefore be focussed on three aspects of the bill: first, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, on which I will be making a few remarks; then the issue of off-site workers; and finally, certification of a union, which could be issued by the Board following an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer.

Let me turn first to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The bill abolishes the Canada Labour Relations Board, with which you are now familiar. I think that everyone working in this sector was aware of the major problems within the former Board. There was a clear need to change the body, particularly regarding the administrative authority for the management of the Board itself. I believe the CPQ thinks the bill meets these needs well.

Nevertheless, we must realize that if we don't change the individuals who were on the former board, the objective of the bill will not be met. The need for new blood on the Canada Industrial Relations Board is indicated clearly in the bill. It is mentioned in the transitional provisions, at clause 87. It says "the members of the former Board cease to hold office on the commencement day." It is therefore quite clear that the mandate of the former board members will not be automatically renewed. I think it is important that members of Parliament ensure compliance with this expressly stated intention in the bill.

• 1605

Now, with respect to those who take on the important positions—and here I am obviously referring to the positions of chairperson and vice-chairpersons, and as we know, the chairperson has already been appointed—the bill provides that they are to be appointed by the Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the Minister.

However, there's no provision for consulting people who work in labour relations regarding the choice of the chairperson and the vice-chairpersons, which are important positions on the Board.

The CPQ insists that there should be consultations once these individuals are nominated, particularly with reference to subclause 10(5) of the bill, which provides, and this is new:

(5) The Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons must have experience and expertise in industrial relations.

I think the best way of ensuring that this objective of the bill is met is to consult, not only the CPQ, but also all the parties involved.

On page 2 of our brief you will find some perhaps more specific comments about the Canada Industrial Relations Board's power to extend the time for instituting a proceeding.

The CPQ is obviously opposed to this provision, the effect of which is to allow for a time extension, and, consequently, to cause insecurity and instability for the parties. Finally, we would not know at any time whether a situation is final, because the extensions could be cancelled or reactivated.

You also notice in our presentation that if this provision that allows for time extensions were to be maintained, the CPQ would ask that this power be at least subject to the same conditions as set out in the bill for grievance arbitrators. At the very least, the Board should have to comply with certain criteria in the case of time extensions. In particular, the Board should be of the view that the extension is justified and does not unduly jeopardize the rights of the other party. I think this is the bare minimum to be required before time periods are extended.

I would now like to discuss the second aspect, namely off-site workers. The CPQ has always objected to any change to the Canada Labour Code that would make unionization unduly easy. We maintain that this is precisely what is done in proposed clause 109.1 of the Canada Labour Code. The effect of this clause is to allow for the provision of a list of names and addresses of off-site workers. The CPQ cannot possibly sanction this measure, particularly since the Sims Report, which is the source of these amendments, never found any evidence that the isolation of these workers makes it difficult to establish a union. This difficulty could easily be explained by the special interests that employees may have regarding their off-site location.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Ms. Graton, I'm having some trouble following your conversation with regard to the brief you submitted. Are you following it and am I missing it?

Ms. Sylvie Graton: No, I'm not following it. On the off-site workers, there's no mention in the mémoire of that aspect.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): It would help us if, when you start on a new point, you would tell us where it is in your brief.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: Okay. Some aspects of the brief are very technical and I don't intend to address these topics this afternoon, except if you have a question on them.

Regarding the mémoire, the first part of what I have already covered is on page 2 under subrogation of delay. I won't mention this afternoon the other aspect regarding accreditation and everything. My intention is to now go to the Pratiques déloyales on fair labour practice, which should be on the last page of the English version.

• 1610

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Let me also caution you that you have a half hour for your presentation, plus any questions and comments that might come out of it.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: I thought I had 15 minutes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): You can speak for 15 minutes and leave 15 minutes for questions. I just didn't know if anyone had told you your total time is half an hour.

Ms. Sylvie Gratton: Okay.

Our last point is unfair labour practices.

[Translation]

With respect to complaints about unfair labour practices, I would like to draw your attention to proposed clause 99.1. I will read it quickly to help you understand the CPQ's recommendation.

99.1 The Board may certify a trade union despite a lack of evidence of majority support if the employer has failed to comply with section 94; and

This is the provision that deals with complaints regarding unfair labour practices.

(b) the Board is of the opinion that, but for the unfair labour practice, the trade union could reasonably have expected to have had the support of the majority of employees in the unit.

You can see the great impact that this provision would have in the CPQ's view. Ultimately, it allows for a certification to be issued despite the fact there is no proof that this is the wish of the employees. The text itself states: "Despite a lack of evidence of majority support."

With your permission, I will just take a few minutes to describe the context in which such a provision could be applied. At the outset, of course, an application for certification is filed. In support of the application for certification, there is always proof of representation. For example, if 35 per cent of the employees do not support the application, this usually results in its rejection. If, on the other hand, the support is between 35 per cent and 50 per cent, a vote is taken. If the vote goes against the establishment of a union, in order for proposed clause 99.1 to apply, an unfair labour practice complaint would had to have been filed at the same time. There must have been some unfair behaviour on the part of the employer and it must be proven. Some individuals have a great deal of imagination in this regard. The Board would therefore conclude that the steps taken by the employer were such that they prevented the union from increasing its number of members or resulted in the vote against the union.

The solution suggested in clause 99.1 of the bill for situations of this type, when there is a lack of evidence of majority support for unionization, is to certify the union nevertheless. In a case such as this, we could say that not only is there a lack of evidence, but the evidence that does exist is to the contrary.

Rather than giving the Board the power to certify directly, the CPQ suggests that it be given the power to order a vote. The vote could be taken on the circumstances that the Board could control through its various powers. The vote would allow employees to express their will freely.

In our view, it is extremely difficult for the Board to decide what would have happened had there not been a complaint of unfair labour practice. I think too that this runs counter to the general framework of the Code, which, of course, is to provide vast powers to an accreditated agent, but only to the extent that there is evidence of support from the majority of employees.

In this context, we think it is important, for all parties concerned—both the employers and the union members, the employees and the union—to give some legitimacy to accreditation, which it would not have if the Board made an arbitrary decision. The situation could easily result in conflicts, given that afterwards the parties will have to negotiate a collective agreement. This would be a typical case in which the collective agreement would ultimately be imposed rather than negotiated.

In order for the certification to be credible, we suggest that the employer be genuinely convinced, as a result of the vote, that this was the wish of the employees. This would also work in favour of achieving the intention of the legislation. We should point out that the intention of the Code is not to promote unionization at all costs, but rather to recognize the right of employees to establish unions, while providing a context for healthy labour relations.

Those are the comments the CPQ wanted to make.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much.

Our first questioner will be Mr. Johnston.

• 1615

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation, Madame Graton. You mentioned that you have some problem with the maintenance of privacy of the employees. I have to assume that you're talking about the employer supplying to union organizers all the names and addresses of off-site workers. Would you like an opportunity to enlarge on just exactly what your concerns are there?

Ms. Sylvie Graton: Our concerns about off-site workers are mainly to allow a union to have access to names and addresses. But on the technicalities, we are fully aware of the changes made between C-66 and C-19. Some concerns we have regarding the privacy of this information have been answered by the new projet de loi. So our main concern about this is only on the principal way.... The CPQ is absolutely unnecessary to furnish names and addresses to the union.

Mr. Dale Johnston: If it's absolutely unnecessary, I'm missing what sort of a mechanism the union would have in order to have contact with the employees.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: I'm certainly not in a position to give any trick the union could have in this aspect. But I think—

Mr. Robert Nault: I'll explain it to you, Dale.

Mr. Dale Johnston: No. I'm asking for your opinion on this. I think I hear you saying that you're concerned about the lack of consent of the employees. I'm wondering if you have any suggestions as to how the bill can be amended so that it would be more agreeable to you.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: Unfortunately the CPQ's opinion on that is that there should not be any modification on that section. Section 109 already exists, but proposed section 109.1 is new, and on that section the CPQ doesn't see any opportunity to open the door to such a process. Once the process is there we don't have any modification to suggest.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay. Thank you.

On the matter of dispute settlement mechanisms, do you have any thought on dispute settlement mechanisms that should be or could be used in cases where, as is so often the case in federally regulated workplaces, there is no alternative to those services? In those cases, a strike can have a devastating effect on the economy because there's no real alternative to those services. Do you have any thoughts on the use of dispute settlement mechanisms?

Ms. Sylvie Graton: No. There's no specific representation that the CPQ wants to make on this subject. There was of course the anti-scab disposition that was already discussed in previous consultation, and on that, for today, I don't have any specific representation to make.

Mr. Dale Johnston: On the anti-replacement-worker legislation, we have had various people suggest to us that the use of a total replacement worker ban would have the effect of more peaceful strikes of shorter duration. What's your opinion on that?

Ms. Sylvie Graton: On that, traditionally, the CPQ position has always been to object to such a conclusion. For us there is absolutely no link to make between the anti-scab disposition and peaceful labour relations or labour conflicts. There is no evidence on that specifically in Quebec, where we've lived with such a disposition for a long time. There are many aspects that have to be considered, so we object to any conclusions made about that. Historically, the position of the CPQ has always been to see any disposition of this nature as a restriction of any right of the employer to maintain his enterprise and to reply to the strike right of the employee. For us, it's an unfair imbalance for the employer.

• 1620

Mr. Dale Johnston: As usual, we're just getting into the meat of it and my time runs out.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Maybe Mr. Martin will pick it up for you—

Mr. Dale Johnston: I have a feeling he will.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): —or take it in the other direction.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

You said unions often have a great deal of imagination with relation to unfair labour practice allegations. Then you went on to say the board should have the power to order a vote but not to grant automatic certification should the applicant union be lucky enough to be able to prove these unfair labour practices.

It's been my personal experience that these unfair labour practices do exist during organizing drives and workers are threatened with either being fired or plant closure as a way to try to intimidate them.

Your point was that they should order a vote. My argument is, the reason they grant automatic certification is because there's been such coercion that there's no way to determine the true wishes of the employees. The whole process has been tainted by the interference, or the interference has been such that it would be impossible to determine the true wishes of the employees by holding a vote, now or six months later. I take exception to your position there.

You commented that your goal is to provide a balance, but the whole object of this is to recognize the imbalance that exists between the power relationship of an employer and the employees. That's really the goal in this particular document: to try to minimize the imbalance that historically exists.

As far as anti-scab goes, people have made presentations here who clearly outlined the difference between the Duplessis years in Quebec—where there was no such protection and you had prolonged, violent strikes and picket line violence with people being injured and killed, in fact—and the current situation where I've had personal experience. I joined the workers of my union on a strike in the province of Quebec, where there is no picket line to go to. I asked where to pick up my pickets and join the picket line, but there was no picket line because there's no need. There is no fear of somebody else—scabs—coming in to take your job.

Again, I disagree with you 100%. You imply there's no empirical evidence to show that the incidence of picket line violence and the number of days lost due to strikes and lockouts is not lower now than it was in the bad old days of the historical period of violence in the province of Quebec. I take objection to a lot of those statements. If you have time, you can reply. I don't have any questions as such.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you.

Would you like to respond, Ms. Graton?

Ms. Sylvie Graton: I respect your opinion. I didn't have the opportunity to hear the other person who came to express other opinions. As I told you, I think the CPQ's position on that is very clear. Even if there is now less violence in some labour conflicts in Quebec, I cannot make any equation between that and anti-scab disposition. This is a question of opinion and I don't have any specific reply to give on that.

For the vote, maybe on the more technical point of view, I understand clearly the context in which the board would like to decide to provide for automatic certification, but I think there are modalities the board can have to answer that situation after an unfair labour practice. After six months of a certain delay with some modalities regarding, for example, the liberty of speech or anything of the employer, there are modalities that can be put in place that could allow, I think, employees to express their views on the certification process.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is it your recommendation then that there be a fixed delay period between the allegations of unfair labour practices and the vote?

Ms. Sylvie Graton: No, but you mentioned six months.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I did, but is there a timeframe within your presentation or do you recommend one?

• 1625

Ms. Sylvie Graton: No, there's no timeframe. I think that should be for the board to decide, because it depends on all the circumstances.

Mr. Pat Martin: After six months or one year, though, the employees could then file an application to decertify. If it was really their wish to not be represented by the union, there's nothing stopping them from decertifying at that point.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: Yes, but at that point, they are not certified at all.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mrs. Chamberlain.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): My question touches on Mr. Martin's line with regard to the power to order a vote instead of directly certifying.

I would put this to you. If you were an employee and you were being intimidated by your employer, maybe with loss of position, loss of job, loss of pay, or having to work the night shift instead of working the day shift, as they've done for the last 15 years—there's a whole host of things—these things can turn peoples' lives upside down.

I think the government is trying to move in a direction—again, it's very clear—that if unfair practice is proven, then there is a mechanism to certify if there's justification for it, and only if there's justification. I think that's the important thing. I guess I want to say to you that it's an attempt by this government to bring fairness into a piece of legislation that hasn't necessarily existed.

When you say you can go back to the board, that there can be a period of time, and that maybe you can get in, the reality is, if there is an intimidation tactic taking place like that, and it's perhaps going to cost a person their job, they will back off. They will say anything.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: Yes, but at this time, normally the unfair labour practice has been accepted by the board and remedies have been set. I'm not pretending there is no impact at all, but there are remedies, very specific remedies. The board can render a decision in which it can reassure employees of their rights and everything. But after that—and I think the CPQ's position is the following—it's not because an unfair practice could have influenced an employee, which I understand, and which could happen in some circumstances, that we should presume that these employees want, on a majority basis, to be certified. There is no basis on which to conclude in such way. Let them decide freely what they want.

Of course, if it's the majority, then sure, we have to respect it. But it's on the assumption or the conclusion that because of the unfair practice we have to conclude that the majority will have a desire to certify....

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: With due respect, I think in a perfect world, if you could somehow take all that intimidation factor away and get a true vote...but if that truly has happened, then it's very difficult, six months or a year down the road, to ever make that go away.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: In my practice I have seen situations like this, and I think that's the best way to achieve goals under the code.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mrs. Chamberlain.

Mr. Rocheleau, did you want to have a say?

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I'm surprised that you did not comment more on the experience in Quebec, given that since 1977, there is social peace in Quebec with respect to replacement workers. The fact is that the Conseil du patronat has distanced itself from this matter, even though it did get a positive verdict from the Supreme Court when it challenged the legislation. In the interest of social peace in Quebec, it decided not to proceed so as not to cause trouble and perhaps because it received good advice from Premier Bourassa at the time.

Why are you not being bolder today and advising the Canadian government to follow Quebec's example?

Ms. Sylvie Graton: I would tell you to be careful, Mr. Rocheleau, because you could make us consider going back to challenge the legislation before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: No problem.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: I would just like to point out that briefs had been tabled by the CPQ at the time of previous consultations. I'm referring to a brief tabled with the Sims Commission in November 1995. I could send a copy of it to committee members, if you wish.

The dispute taken by the CPQ to the Supreme Court focussed on its status as an association of employers and its right to challenge these provisions. When the Supreme Court ruled, the Conseil decided not to repeat the debate on the substance for various reasons. I'm not at all prepared to say that from this you should conclude that we support the anti-strikebreaker provisions.

• 1630

As I said before, we are still opposed to the anti- strikebreaker provisions, particularly because we think that in factual terms, no conclusions can be drawn, because there has been no change in the nature or number of disputes. I've raised this subject with Mr. Martin earlier. There is an imbalance in relations between unions and employees, and this runs counter to the general context of labour relations in industry.

I think the CPQ always opposed these provisions. We do not believe Quebec's experience argues in favour of the introduction of such measures.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: The burden of proof lies with you.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: Listen, I'm repeating a position—

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau, and thank you, Ms. Graton.

I see no more questioners, so I thank you for your attendance.

Ms. Sylvie Graton: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): I now ask the representatives of the workers and workesses of Quebec—

Mr. Dale Johnston: It loses something in the translation, doesn't it?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Yes, I know. We don't have workesses here; it's workers. We have waiters and waitresses, though.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the representatives of the FTQ: Mr. Denis Courteau, the regional director; Mr. Emile Vallée; and Mr. Jean-Pierre Néron.

I don't know which of you gentlemen is going to speak first. Mr. Courteau? Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Courteau (Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec; Regional Director for Quebec, Canadian Union of Postal Workers): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to thank all the assistants and all the members of Parliament representing the government and the opposition parties.

We will be making an oral presentation today. We have not prepared any written brief. Our presentation will be broken into three parts. The first will be presented by Mr. Émile Vallée, the FTQ's political advisor, the second part will be presented by Jean- Pierre Néron, the FTQ's legal advisor, and I will conclude our presentation with some comments about replacement workers.

I will now turn the floor over to Émile Vallée.

Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): Madam Chair, the FTQ has approximately 480,000 members in Quebec. It is the largest central labour organization. Some 60,000 of its members are covered by the Canada Labour Code.

The FTQ is part of the Canadian Labour Congress, the CLC family. We represent the union members in Quebec affiliated with the CLC. The President of the FTQ is on the executive of the CLC, and, under an agreement between the two central bodies, the FTQ is in fact the CLC in Quebec.

The FTQ has followed from the beginning the process that led to Bill C-19. We took part in the work done by the joint CLC-FETCO task force and submitted a brief to the Sims task force. We also appeared last year to support the major thrust of Bill C-66. Last summer, we asked the Minister of Labour, after his appointment, to table a new Bill C-66. It is now Bill C-19.

• 1635

The purpose of this preamble is to tell you that the FTQ is very interested in the process and hopes that after taking into account our few remarks on some aspects of the bill, your committee will recommend to the House that it be passed. The bill is a genuine step forward in the area of labour relations covered by the Canada Labour Code and we want to see it passed into law. Jean- Pierre.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Néron (Legal Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): Madam Chair, we are very interested in some provisions of the bill, and we hope they are passed quickly.

I will speak first about the Board. For many years, the FTQ has been calling for a provision that would make the Board representative. Naturally, that means there are employer representatives on one side, and employee representatives on the other. That suits us very well indeed.

We would also like this representative Board to represent the various regions of Canada as well, and to take into account gender parity. These are all reasons why we want the bill to be passed.

However I would like to make a brief comment. Clause 10(2) states that the Minister will appoint the members other than the chairperson and the vice-chairpersons after consultation with the organizations. As we have said in other briefs, we would have preferred the appointments to be made from lists of names provided by the associations. With that reservation, we would like to pay tribute to the openness that has been shown and the fact that the board will be representative.

Throughout the bill, we see that the Board will have increased powers, including the power to settle and correct injustices that may have occurred in the course of labour relations. We're thinking specifically here of the power to certify in the case of unfair labour practices, as mentioned in clause 99.9. We support the principle set out in this clause.

However, we would like add a comment. We would like the burden of proof to lie with the employer at fault, who should have to prove that his behaviour had no impact on the unionization campaign. It should not be up to the union to prove that there would have been majority support, had it not been for the unfair labour practices.

Why is this important? The reason is that once there is an unfair labour practice, contrary to what the spokesperson for the CPQ was telling you, who was suggesting that a vote be ordered in such cases, we think the harm has been done, and the matter ends there. There could perhaps be a vote, but as the committee members agreed earlier, when individuals are threatened with losing their jobs, the harm has been done, and that is the end of the matter. The conditions in which people are free to chose a union freely no longer exist.

That is why this injustice must be corrected and employers sent a clear message telling them that this type of practice will not be tolerated in Canada. We think that people's freedom must be given precedence, and they must be free to make choices. If they chose not to have a union, we agree, but we do not want any interference and unfair labour practices. That must be very, very clear. A number of other unions have made the same request, including the Canadian Automobile Workers.

We want this representative Board to have enough flexibility, and I think this bill does just that. For example, although there are three-person panels, at some point, the chairperson or vice- chairperson may sit alone. We think these practices could speed up the process and help us to have a genuinely flexible Board.

The Board must also be able to adapt to an evolving society, where the ways in which work is organized are changing. Clause 109.1 deals with access to employees and communications with off- site workers. Once again, we disagree with the previous group.

• 1640

If we want these individuals to have a genuine opportunity to establish a union, we must be able to get in touch with them. We are in favour of the amendments made in Bills C-66 and C-19, which included some privacy provisions. That is a very important concept in our society, and we support it, but we must also be able to communicate with these people in order to help them become unionized. That is a relevant aspect of this bill.

Before going to the issue of replacement workers, I would like to mention that clause 44 is a plus, because it provides that businesses that come under provincial jurisdiction may be covered by the new Canada Labour Code. This is what is known as successor rights.

On the other hand, there is still a large number of workers who come under federal jurisdiction, namely all those governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, who are not covered. If ever these people were to come under the Canada Labour Code, there would be a legal vacuum. This has happened in the past. We would then have to have the union cards signed again and the agreements renegotiated. This is one aspect of the bill we find somewhat disappointing. You made an overture to the provinces when you said that you would provide them with protection if they came under the Canada Labour Code, yet you did not do so for employees in your own jurisdiction. I find it somewhat bizarre that this has not been included.

Those are our comments. We will now turn to the issue of replacement workers.

Thank you.

Mr. Denis Courteau: Madam Chair, I would like to start by saying that in addition to being the Vice-President of the FTQ, I am the National Director of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I am therefore in a very good position to talk about replacement workers, because I have experienced this situation on three occasions—twice in 1987, and most recently in 1991.

We in the FTQ think it is most unfortunate that there is no provision in the bill about not using replacement workers. Let us look at what has happened in Quebec since 1977. We have managed to civilize disputes between two parties. The word "civilized" may seem strange to you, but it is the proper term. I would also like to point out that although this provision has existed in Quebec for 20 years, and although the government has changed hands, no one on the employer's side has so far asked that this Act be repealed.

Obviously, when replacement workers can be hired, a third party is introduced into a process involving two parties. I would first like to point out that the union is not the only party involved. I am referring to my personal experience, but you could also check with the unemployed who were threatened with losing their unemployment insurance if they did not agree to work as scabs during labour disputes.

If we compare the strikes in which replacement workers were used with those during which they were not used, we find that there was a great deal of violence when replacement workers were used and almost none when they were not used.

During the last postal strike, although it was tough, there were no replacement workers and there was no violence. There was some desire to return to work, and even though workers had to obey the legislation, mutual respect between the parties was visible. That was not the case when replacement workers were hired. Labour relations were more difficult and it took years before social peace could be restored between the employer and the union, and particularly between the employer and the employees.

There is also the power relationship to consider. As you know, Canada Post is a large business with many employees. But there are also many small businesses in Canada. If you allow small businesses to replace their workers, you eliminate one side of the power relationship. Employees will no longer have any way of defending themselves against their employer.

If you take Quebec as an example, you see that this legislation has not given unionized workers any advantages. From the pay and benefits standpoint, that legislation has had no impact on labour relations or wages.

• 1645

It was not a form of blackmail. One might say it has just made labour relations more civilized.

Thus, we believe the government should consider including a provision banning replacement workers, in an effort to make labour relations more civilized and to maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect between the parties during disputes. These provisions have been in place in Quebec for 20 years now, and we have seen that banning replacement workers is clearly preferable.

A few moments ago, some people mentioned the past—Duplessis and his era. Before 1977 in Quebec, people were killed, and there were fights, violence and bombs. We don't see any of that today. An amendment banning replacement workers would therefore be extremely constructive.

Thank you for agreeing to hear us. We are ready for your questions.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much.

Mr. Johnston, are you ready?

Mr. Dale Johnston: I think I'll defer to Mr. Anders to start this round.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): There are a couple of interesting points. You mentioned that you want to see the onus on employers to disprove unfair labour practices. To me, that somehow violates the whole idea that one is innocent until proven guilty. The idea that you can merely charge them with an unfair labour practice and not have to provide any proof and the onus is on them, somehow violates some fundamental rules of justice, for me.

Second, the whole idea that replacement worker bans somehow equal labour peace is based on the premise that violence is committed by union organizers, or is instigated by union organizers in picket-line situations or in strike situations, so therefore, really, the onus, if you will, for labour violence in the case of strikes or lockouts lies predominantly with the union organizers and with those people who are instigating violence. The Yellowknife mine example in Canada, where many miners died as a result of a bomb explosion—you mentioned that as well, not in terms of the Yellowknife example but in previous history in Quebec—clearly indicates to me that the problem with union violence lies not with replacement workers but with those people who are looking to disrupt the peaceful entry of those workers into a work site.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Who's going to respond to that? Mr. Vallée looked like he was taking some notes.

Mr. Emile Vallée: I won't answer the question on the onus on the employer in clause 94.1. I'll leave that to Jean-Pierre.

On the question of the violence in Quebec, in recent years the cases where there has been violence during strikes have been cases under federal jurisdiction. We've had Ogilvie, the Robin Hood case—you may have heard about it, by the CSN—we've had cases in the airline industry, with Nationair. There are no cases under provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Rob Anders: That's somewhat ludicrous. If you shut down a business and they can't operate, of course you can't have any union goons outside trying to instigate labour union violence for the use of replacement workers, can you?

Mr. Emile Vallée: Goons—that works two ways. They come from both sides. I will not say that the unions have not at times used violence to make their case. Yes, they have. But sometimes unions have done that because they have been provoked by employers. When workers go on strike, workers go on strike to make their case. It is their job at stake. Workers do not want to lose their jobs. When an employer uses a replacement worker, a scab, that employer is giving the message to the workers that they are not needed, that they can be replaced by somebody else. Workers, of course, will react to that. You cannot expect workers to just sit on the sidelines and let somebody else come and take their jobs. There's no way.

Mr. Rob Anders: But they don't own it.

Mr. Emile Vallée: I would not say that violence is strictly an attribute of the union. That is a very easy and facile statement. Each case has to be looked at very seriously.

• 1650

The point is, when you look at the situation in Quebec, as we have said, we've had the law for 20 years. For whatever reason, the employers could have gone to the Supreme Court on that thing. They have not done it.

The government that introduced that legislation in Quebec has been defeated since then. Other governments have come in, and those governments and just about everybody has felt that the law as it is, whether people agree with it or not, has really reduced conflict in Quebec and has helped to ease the tension between employers and unions to the point at which the record of labour relations and strikes in Quebec is lower than it has ever been. It's lower than it is in many other jurisdictions. In that respect, that law has had a very beneficial effect on labour relations.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you.

Mr. Néron would like to address the other point.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Néron: I wanted to say that I don't consider it unfair to put the onus on the employer. To my mind, legislators have dealt with the issue and decided a number of times that the onus should indeed be on the employer. Take dismissal for just cause, for example: the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that he has just, insufficient cause to dismiss the employee. So I don't think this is unfair. The point of course is that Canadian society is sending out a message that everyone gets a fair chance. In the same way, we want to send a message that labour relations have to become more civilized. This means dealing with unfair practices, and also ensuring that workers do not suffer irreparable harm. That is the balance we are trying to achieve. In my opinion, this bill lacks some of the provisions it would need to qualify, to achieve the balance sought in the report.

Mr. Denis Courteau: I would like to add something here. I believe that accusing unionized workers of violence is a gratuitous statement. Personally, I have seen employers unashamedly provoking a picket line in order to get rid of some employees who were no longer protected. So no one should claim that the hotheads are all on one side; sometimes, there are just as many on the other side.

So we should be careful when we talk about making regulations and labour relations more civilized. What Quebec has done is help both parties become civilized.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Do you want to get in, Mr. Nault?

Mr. Bob Nault: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Whatever side you're on, I suppose, as far as scabs are concerned and the whole issue of whether it does make for better labour relations, there has been debate as to whether there's proof that it works. Even though there is experience in Quebec for the last 20 years that shows a dramatic improvement in labour relations and a reduction in violence, there's still a reluctance from people who disagree with this particular part of, in this case, Quebec's labour code to accept that it does make a difference.

From your perspective, is there any way for us to show, except statistically, that it does make a difference and that there are possibly other jurisdictions as well? Quebec has the longest experience of this particular method of dealing with disputes. Of course, Saskatchewan has one, but they've got such a small industrial workforce that it's pretty difficult to get a sense of them.

I suppose we're trying to look for some solid arguments as to why it is a good thing to have anti-scab legislation.

Mr. Denis Courteau: I believe British Columbia has had it for a few years. Not as long as Quebec but maybe for two years, I believe.

Mr. Bob Nault: That is so short that you—

Mr. Emile Vallée: They've had it for a short time in Ontario, of course, but not very long. The only real place is Quebec. You can say there are hundreds of reasons as to why the climate of industrial relations changed tremendously in Quebec, but if you look carefully you will see that the time the climate changed happens to coincide with the date this law was implemented. You can say that maybe that's not it, but the timing was very good as far as we're concerned.

• 1655

We feel that our relationship with employers—of course, bargaining is not easy—the general rapport between business and labour and unions and employers and employers' associations, has changed dramatically in the last twenty years, to the point at which we can sit down and work out issues together and make recommendations to the government, jointly at times. Whether all of that can be attributed to the anti-scab legislation is open to debate, but the turning point happens to coincide with that date. What can I say? It's been there for 20 years.

Mr. Robert Nault: The other change that both sides tend to be in favour of is the representative board. Can you tell me, based on your experience, why you think this will work better? I understand the regional aspects of a board's make-up, because regional and quite frankly sectoral—having people in the labour relations field on the board who know sectors very well is important. For example, if you have someone who understands transportation and is on the board, it makes a lot of sense when you get into disputes with the railway industries, airlines, and things like that.

The whole issue of representative boards in the sense of labour/management.... I suppose I'm one of those who has a bit of a fear of that in that historically, at least until Mr. Weatherall came along, things ran pretty smoothly federally. Now, of course, they've structured it differently.

Do you not have a fear that it will become employers on this side, labour on the other side? Yes, there will be others who are what they call neutral to some extent. But historically, they are all supposed to be neutral and looking at the issue from its merits. Don't you have that fear that maybe someone will come along, a government that's not to your liking, that will load up the board in a way that's not completely effective? I refer to the Harris government in particular, but that's a long story and we don't have time to get into it here.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Néron: At the FTQ, we have had several opportunities to try management-employee representative boards, including labour boards and advisory boards. We cannot say the format does not work.

In our opinion, everything that touches on labour relations should be discussed among employers and their employees. I don't think we can say we want people to be neutral, because we don't really want that any more. We want people who know what they are doing, and who have a background in labour relations and bargaining. They do need to have that background. We think that's how things should work.

Émile was talking about the labour relations climate in Quebec. It is of course difficult to put your finger on one specific thing, like the anti-scab legislation, and claim that is what changed everything. But we can say that in Quebec employers and labour representatives are talking. This climate may not be there elsewhere, in other provinces, but it is there in Quebec. It certainly explains why all these conflicts were avoided.

When workers are lying dead on a picket line, it is really difficult to cross the line and shake hands with people on the other side. But that sort of thing does not happen anymore; the process has been cleaned up, and I think this is a good way to move towards better labour relations.

Mr. Émile Vallée: There are representative boards in most Canadian provinces, and as far as I know both employers and unions are very satisfied with the approach. But in Quebec, we do not have representative boards.

Under the Quebec Labour Code, we have what we call labour commissioners. But we at the FTQ are seriously thinking about asking for representative boards like those in Ontario, New Brunswick, British Columbia and the other provinces.

• 1700

I think they would give the process a sense of urgency, and make it possible to solve problems more easily, as well as understand them better and in more direct terms. Representative boards are proving successful elsewhere, and they are worth trying.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: First of all, I would like to congratulate all three witnesses on their eloquent testimony.

Now, when we talk about union violence, when scabs are brought in, let's think back to certain disputes. Think about the dispute at United Aircraft, which became Pratt & Whitney. Think about the one we don't talk about very much, the Murray Hill dispute, where I saw armed men on the roof shooting at strikers below.

So we should not be talking about union violence. Unfortunately, violence may result from a badly managed dispute, as we used to see in Quebec.

I have a question on replacement workers. I don't know whether you are aware of this, but between Bill C-66 and Bill C-19, the government has increased the burden of proof on the union, and even made it more complicated. That is why I think I would like your opinion on this section:

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

What is the government trying to do here? Where is that kind of pressure coming from? How can we reconcile this provision with the overall support you are giving this bill? I would like you to explain the FTQ's position.

Mr. Émile Vallée: Obviously, that provision makes things more difficult. People think that with that provision it will be easier to use replacement workers. We did not want to comment on that provision itself, since we were already requesting the article be redrafted to ban replacement workers altogether. But obviously this provision would make things more difficult.

How do we reconcile the provision with our support for the bill? Obviously, we want anti-scab legislation like Quebec's, so that those of our members who are under federal jurisdiction are on the same footing as those under Quebec jurisdiction. But as a whole the bill does represent a step forward, for all the reasons given by Jean-Pierre, including composition of the board, as well as the establishment of more flexible mediation and conciliation procedures that better reflect the way things are today.

And for people who work at home, we feel that the bill represents a genuine step forward from where we are today, and should be supported even if it does not include the anti-scab provisions we want.

Mr. Denis Courteau: We don't want to have to comment on a problem that, in our opinion, should not even exist. Do you understand our position?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you.

If I may be permitted a question, and it doesn't require much of a verbal response, but, Mr. Vallée, you made reference to the decline in labour disruptions since the passage of the replacement worker ban. I'm wondering if the organization has some statistics maybe laid out in chart form as to the number of strikes that used to happen in a year as compared to today.

Mr. Emile Vallée: I don't have them with me, Madam, but we can supply them.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): That's what I'm wondering.

Mr. Emile Vallée: Obviously, the figures are there. They're statistics that come from the labour department, and they show clearly the climate in Quebec and that the number of strikes has fallen dramatically. While it used to be at the upper end of the Canadian average, it's now at the other end.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Yes, I understood that point from your presentation, but I'm asking you if you could send us a chart that shows those numbers.

Mr. Emile Vallée: Yes, we will get the figures and send them to you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): You also made some reference to the fact that the rate of labour disruptions in Quebec is now below those that occur in other jurisdictions. I wonder if you could send us a chart that shows that as well.

Mr. Emile Vallée: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: I was most interested in your remarks about the burden of proof. Jean-Pierre was talking about the onus being on the employer in a case of automatic certification. I'm more interested, and I'm wondering what your feelings are about this, in reversing the onus and putting the burden of proof on the employer in the matter of scabs.

• 1705

Currently, the way this act reads, the employees have to demonstrate that the employer is using scabs for the purpose of undermining the bargaining rights of the union. My argument is, how do we know what's in the mind of the employer? How do workers prove what the true intentions are? Please comment on that.

Also, there's the issue of the single chair. Do you agree that this might help to expedite some of the backlog of applications to certify, for instance? Do you see a valid use for some cases being heard by a single chair rather than the full panel?

I'll stop there because I know we're very short of time.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Néron: On the question of replacement workers and whether employees can prove the employer's intent, I don't know how that would be done in practice. We know how it's done in Quebec. We try to obtain the information and provide it.

Recently, in the Nationair case, which is covered by the Canadian Labour Code, there was one case which was heard by an arbitrator and is now being appealed before the Federal Court of Appeal. You know that a worker on strike is not entitled to employment insurance benefits. But in that particular case, given that the employer had replaced all his employees and that there was no change in the company's activities, the arbitrator ruled that the employees could no longer be considered on strike and awarded them all employment insurance benefits, or unemployment insurance benefits, as they were called at the time.

So employees do have some resources, but obviously, if the burden of proof were put on the employer, we would be in a better position than if we had nothing and had to seek evidence.

As for having a single chair instead of three, this would indeed expedite the process. We support the notion of a board because we want to move the process away from the judiciary, so that there is less intervention by the courts or by lawyers. We want employers and employees to talk to each other, and to settle their labour relations problems among themselves, rather than turn to the government, to lawyers, or to the courts. So we feel that having a single chair instead of three could expedite the process. There are many simple decisions that do not require a three-member panel.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much, Mr. Martin and gentlemen, for coming and sharing your opinions with us. I'm sure the members have found it most interesting.

Members, I'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. The first is that tomorrow we sit from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., and then there's a change: we come back to sit from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. So you'll get home a bit earlier at the end of the day, but you have to remember to come back for 6.30 p.m.

The other thing is that Mr. Johnston has graciously reminded us that a while back we passed a motion saying that April 15 was the deadline for amendments to this bill. Mr. Martin, did you hear that? That deadline will hold because we decided by motion, so it's on the books now.

But that leaves the question of the distribution of the amendments, as they arrive in the clerk's hands, to all members. We did not pass a motion to that effect. Therefore, to distribute the amendments received to all members of the committee after April 15 would require the unanimous consent of the group present here.

Do I have that unanimous consent to distribute the amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): If you send your amendments in they will be distributed to all members of the committee. I would ask you tell your colleagues who are also on the committee that this is what will happen.

• 1710

Thank you very much for your attention. We reconvene at 3.30 p.m. tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.