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]

Wednesday, April 1, 1998

• 1834

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): The meeting is called to order. Good evening and welcome to the representatives of the Canadian Bankers Association. We have Mr. Young, Mr. Alborino, and Mr. Finlay. I will leave it up to you, gentlemen, to decide who will lead in your presentation.

Mr. Alan Young (Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Bankers Association): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My remarks this evening will be brief. Committee members have already received a copy of our written submission, which goes into greater detail on the issues we'll be raising with you this evening.

We appreciate the opportunity you've given us to appear before you and we look forward to responding to any questions you might have at the end of my brief remarks.

The CBA represents 53 chartered banks in Canada, which along with their subsidiaries employ over 221,000 Canadians across the country. There are currently 19 bargaining units in the banking industry and these include approximately 2,500 employees. The largest unit consists of approximately 1,800 employees. Thus, the majority of bank employees do not participate in trade unions.

• 1835

Some people have suggested in the past that banks are anti-union, but I'd like to make it clear at the outset that the banking industry supports and respects freedom of choice and free collective bargaining where a majority of employees freely choose that method of handling the employer-employee relationship.

It is true, however, that we do not subscribe to the view that collective bargaining is inherently superior to other methods of structuring the employer-employee relationship. What is important in any approach is open communication, flexibility, and an effective balance of the interests of employer and employee.

We're here tonight because of two specific concerns we have with Bill C-19 relating to the provisions on off-site workers and remedial certification. First, let me deal briefly with our concerns about off-site workers in proposed section 109.1.

Fundamentally, our view is that this provision is premature. It proposes to establish law around two areas about which there is really very little information at present. These are the nature and amount of work that is being done off-site—probably work at home and most likely work based on telecommuting—and the impact of electronic communications in the workplace and matters relating to its ownership, access, and use.

With respect to off-site workers, the labour program at Human Resources Development Canada is just beginning to examine new ways that Canadians are working, through the launching of a survey prior to consultations on the reform of part III of the Canada Labour Code. This will certainly focus on telecommuting and work at home to some extent.

At present, however, we just don't know a lot about who these people are, how many there are, what kinds of work habits or working hours they have, or what type of work they're doing. We also have virtually no hard data about electronic communication in the workplace, who should have access to it, how it should be used, and to what degree it replaces other means of communication.

The former minister of labour hosted a symposium in February 1997 on the information highway and its impact on the workforce. That symposium, in our view, was a good beginning, but it barely identified some of the problems in this area. It's our view that it's premature to deal appropriately with the issues raised by proposed section 109.1.

Should it be deemed necessary by members of this committee, and indeed by Parliament, to legislate in this area at this time, we believe there are some parts of the section that need to be amended. These concerns relate largely to privacy matters.

First of all, the bill does not incorporate the fundamental principle of consent on the part of individual employees working off-site prior to the potential release of their names and addresses to unions by order of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We also feel it's not appropriate to leave responsibility for the protection of privacy in the hands of the board. The bill itself should incorporate fundamental privacy principles that the board can then have the responsibility for ensuring or carrying out.

Secondly, the use of the employer's electronic communication system to convey the union's messages appears to us as both an invasion of employer privacy and quite a big departure from access to employees currently allowed by the code. As long as individual consent of employees is obtained for the release of their names and addresses—presumably this would include Internet e-mail addresses, where applicable—then surely the union has all it needs in order to contact those individuals.

In our submission, we provide some alternate wording for proposed section 109.1, which provides that the board be responsible for obtaining the consent of employees who wish to be contacted by a union.

We don't like to just bring a problem before Parliament and parliamentary committees; we also like to bring a solution. Therefore, in our submission on page 5, and on page 1 of our executive summary, we've offered some alternate language for your consideration. This wording, you will note, eliminates the potential usage of the employer's e-mail system as a means of communication.

We urge you to consider our recommended redrafting of this section as a fair and balanced means of achieving the access needed by unions, without compromising the privacy rights of employees and employers.

Let me turn now to our second issue of remedial certification. Proposed section 99.1 would permit the new board to certify a union despite lack of evidence of majority support from employees. If there's evidence of an unfair labour practice on the part of an employer during a union drive for certification, we agree the board must deal with the infraction appropriately. But the board's action should not be taken at the expense of employees, especially those who may not wish to join a trade union.

• 1840

Furthermore, I think it's unreasonable to expect the board to make a determination of whether the union would or would not have achieved majority support, particularly if the union card signing never exceeded 50%. So the CBA recommends that proposed section 99.1 be amended.

In cases where an employer has been guilty of engaging in a practice that might have instructed the union's ability to obtain signed cards, the board should be required to supervise a secret ballot vote to determine if there is majority support for certification.

Again, we've come with a proposed solution to the issue that we've raised before you. You can find our recommended wording on page 7 of our submission and on page 2 of the executive summary.

Madam Chair, these are the concerns and recommendations that the banking industry wishes to draw to the attention of this committee this evening with respect to Bill C-19. Thank you very much for the time you've given us and your attention. We would be very pleased to respond to any questions members may have.

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

Mr. Johnston, would you like to begin?

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. I notice that your presentation has very similar concerns to that of the privacy commissioner. One of these is what's missing in this whole aspect of certifying or attempting to organize off-site workers, which is the consent of the workers themselves.

I'm pleased to see that you have put in an amendment here that would make a lot of sense. We'll do everything we can to make sure that amendment—of course, I'm speaking strictly for ourselves here—is adopted.

As for the business of certifying without a majority vote, it seems to me that if that was a good idea, then decertification without a majority vote should be a good idea as well. Of course, I don't think anybody else in any of the other parties around this table would go for that. What I can't understand is how in the world they would agree to a certifying union if there was no evidence of a majority. After all, this legislation is patterned after a report called “Seeking a Balance”, so if we want to keep everything in balance, we should be able to decertify the union without any majority as well.

Do any of you care to comment on that?

Mr. Andrew Finlay (Senior Counsel, Employment Law Group, Bank of Nova Scotia; Canadian Bankers Association): What we're saying on certification is that we should respect the employees' wishes. We really haven't addressed the issue of decertification. It's a different process even within the code now. Ultimately, the whole notion of certification/decertification is based on the employees' wishes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: It should be based on employees' wishes, but it should be based on a majority of the employees' wishes. I think that's the point you have made very clearly, and I thank you for making that.

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

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I asked some of the previous groups who appeared before our committee what type of competition they were facing from people outside the country who offer the same types of services now. We've seen, in recent years, some banks—these are from the United States most notably, but also there are some others, of course—talking of mergers here in Canada to be able to compete with some banks out of Holland and some others around the world.

How does this type of legislation compare with what your competitors have in the United States? What type of possibilities could we see for the move by American banks into some of the territory here in Canada if we look at this legislation as how it will impact Canadian banks and how American banks have different legislation to operate under?

Mr. Alan Young: I can address the issue of the level of competition in new banks entering the marketplace. I don't have information personally with respect to the labour regime that the banks in the United States face. I don't know if either of my colleagues have that particular information either.

• 1845

With respect to new entrants, there have been a considerable number of new bank entrants in the marketplace in the last 18 months, not just from the United States but also from Holland. In Holland there have been at least two banks, ING Bank and Rabobank, for example, which are approaching various niche markets in the industry. The level of competition in the banking sector has, I believe, increased very dramatically.

Some of the new competitors such as Wells Fargo and ING are here as virtual banks. They don't invest in the infrastructure, the bricks and mortar, and put branches in all the communities across the country like the current banks in Canada have. So they're making great use of the electronic highway and the electronic network to deal with Canadians and to gather business.

When they come into Canada, of course, they would have to comply with the laws, the Canada Labour Code, as it would apply to any other bank operating in Canada that was chartered to operate. But as to the regimes that they're operating in, in the United States or in Holland, I'm not familiar with that.

Mr. Andrew Finlay: I'm not familiar with specific regimes, but I would say there's a huge range. Focusing on the U.S. alone is probably not appropriate any more because the competition is coming from Europe and southeast Asia—not just the U.S., not just the U.K., but from South America.

Also, the banking industry itself in Canada is very international, operating in all these countries and competing not just with other banks but with other organizations that traditionally have not been financial organizations, such as GE and IBM. So I guess it gets very complicated. And the U.S., while it's the elephant down south, is only one elephant.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Mr. Rocheleau. No? Then Mrs. Chamberlain.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): I met with the group here—some of them—earlier and I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. One of the things we discussed was the issue you've brought forth here tonight, Mr. Finlay. One of the things I believe you told me when we met was that there was a general support for the bill, that it was an important piece of legislation, that you weren't happy with those sections, but in general you hoped the bill would go through. I hope that is still your feeling; when we met I know it was clear.

The one thing I want to touch on in particular—and we've touched on it with other groups—is the remedial certification. Your proposed way of dealing with it would be the secret ballot vote. While on the surface I would say respectfully that this may seem okay, to an organization that perhaps has used intimidation or coercion with their employees, that has perhaps done all kinds of things, from saying, “You're working part-time and you're going to get fewer hours”, to “We're not going to have you work here any more, you're going to do different shifts that you may not like; you're going to get all the 4 to 8 shifts in the bank”, or whatever.

Intimidation is a really severe thing, and if a group wants to certify and feels that intimidation, I would say to you respectfully that I think a secret ballot won't take the intimidation away. That fear is still there.

One of the reasons we've moved towards the automatic certification if there is proven intimidation is to really say to employers, you can't do this; you can't put fear in the hearts of people who perhaps want to have a union. It's not right. It's a real signal to people to say, if you do it, this is the risk you run.

One group that appeared before us was very clear. They asked, what other thing could you do to an employer? Today we did have somebody come forth with another idea. They said take the CEO—for instance, your bank president—and put him in jail if he did this. I don't think that's a reasonable solution, and I'm not sure he'd be really pleased if you were advocating this.

Mr. Andrew Finlay: I don't think he would support that, no.

Mr. Alan Young: Put it clearly on the record that we do not support it.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: I thought you might want to.

So I just want to make that point to you. While it sounds good—you know, “Okay, we'll go ahead; we'll have the board look after a secret ballot”—if real intimidation has been used and people are fearful of losing their jobs or being stuck on a ship they don't want to be on or losing a position they may be now enjoying, then a secret ballot won't do it for them. They're nervous.

• 1850

So you've destroyed that openness. There has to be a message sent to employers that they can't do this, that it's not right.

Mr. Santo Alborino (Senior Manager, Employee/Industrial Relations Corporate, Human Resources, Bank of Montreal; Canadian Bankers Association): Can I take that one? I've had a little bit of experience there, and I'd like to offer a little bit of my past experience with respect to these types of situations.

Let me first start by saying that the fact that there may be an assumption of wrongdoing on the part of the employer, by intimidation or other means—and I'm not denying that—

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: It has to be proven. It can't be an assumption.

Mr. Santo Alborino: Right.

That reason itself does not take away the basic right, in my opinion, of another employee to choose whether or not they want to become members of and associate with a given union.

Now, the board does also have some pretty important and strong powers, which they've utilized in the past. Back in the early 1970s, I remember, with regard to one of the banks, as a matter of fact, a letter was ordered in Quebec City to be signed by one of the very senior executives. It was sent to all of the employees. It talked about what unions are, their importance, the respecting of their rights, and what have you. This was asked for by the board.

So the board does have the opportunity to make those wrongs right without taking away the freedom of employees to choose. It's really a balance we're looking at, not necessarily “one size fits all”.

In that particular experience, believe me, it was learned that everyone has rights. There was a secret ballot vote and the outcome was negative for the union. However, that reflected the true wishes of the employees.

In that respect, I submit to you that this is what we're trying to achieve. If there is a wrong, let's right the wrong. Let's not create another situation where there might be an infringement on employees' rights.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: I appreciate that. If everything went perfectly, I think you probably could do that, but unfortunately it isn't a perfect world, and that's what we're dealing with. We see that here.

Mr. Andrew Finlay: I remember you quite colourfully stating that there may be some employers out there who would cut off their arm to avoid a union.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: It's true.

Mr. Andrew Finlay: That may very well be. I don't think we see those employers these days. Fortunately, I think, our society's come a long way, in federal jurisdiction, anyway. We don't have widespread anti-union acts by employers, or certainly not that we're hearing about.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Again, I appreciate those views, but from my experience it just isn't right. I could name a whole bunch of companies in my own riding.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Martin, please.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): I don't have much to add. One of the key points I wanted to raise is the point Ms. Chamberlain raised—that is, with regard to automatic certification votes in the provincial jurisdictions where it already is law, the rationale is that a vote wouldn't give you an accurate picture any more of what the employees really want, because that opportunity has been lost. The interference is to such a degree that holding a vote isn't going to tell you what are the true wishes of the employees. On that basis they give the benefit of the doubt to the workers who wanted a union. The option there, of course, is that anytime after, they can decertify if they didn't want a union.

The other point concerns the off-site workers. I disagree with you here. First of all, the recommended change you have here is that you would put the onus on the board to obtain, in advance, from each of the employees, a written consent.

Not only do I not agree with that, but the logistics of it also would be unbelievable, especially in any company that does fall under the federal regulations. By nature, they're national in scope, and I don't see how that would be realistic at all.

• 1855

Unions file applications to certify. There are 90 applications to certify backed up right now, waiting to be heard by the federal board. If every one of those had an unfair allegation—it would be easy to throw in an unfair labour allegation—then the board would.... I just can't see that as being realistic.

Our argument with the whole thing is that it's an issue of natural justice that people deserve equal opportunity to then make up their own minds whether they want to join the union or not, and they have to have some communication with them.

The other trade-off is that in this case and in the current recommendations, the board can actually do the distribution of the material for the union. So even though we would argue that communication is one way and not very satisfactory, it could be that you would get a package mailed to you by the board, and that satisfies some privacy concerns.

Mr. Andrew Finlay: I don't know if Alan wants to speak to the issue of the principles involved in privacy versus natural justice and the ability to hear both sides, but I want to deal with one practical issue, and that is, you said it's practically impossible for that to work.

I have a lawyer who works for me at home. It's a simple issue. I provide her address to the board. The board writes to her and says: Do you consent to the union contacting you about certification? Yea or nay, back to the board, and it's as simple as that. Hopefully that would not be administratively burdensome.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's thousands and thousands of employees. You have 240,000 members, of course. Only 1% are unionized, but your bargaining units would be pretty big, wouldn't they?

Mr. Andrew Finlay: Not that many employees work at home. We're talking about a fairly small group, compared to the larger population.

Mr. Pat Martin: More and more garment workers, more and more—

Mr. Andrew Finlay: We're talking about federal jurisdiction too, and you're not going to find garment workers in the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Pat Martin: —couriers, truck transportation.

Mr. Andrew Finlay: You'll find banks. You're going to find telecommunications, and there will not be that many home workers in that environment.

Mr. Santo Alborino: There have been several decisions that have gone back and forth with respect to the size of the units, and so one of the comments that you're making suggests that the unit could be 200,000 large. I don't think so.

We've seen the board going back and forth with respect to the size of the unit, where they've gone as a community of interest, city-wide, branch-wide, department-wide. So somewhere along the line there were no problems in organizing those units, because we've had a number of them, regardless of what's today on paper of what's remaining. There have been employees who have chosen to join unions back and forth in the last fifteen or twenty years in the banking industry, and so that freedom of choice exists.

The ability to obtain names and addresses by the board has been done in an orderly fashion. What we are really saying at this point is, again coming back to a question of basic rights and decency, we can't arbitrarily decide to give information that we consider private, and it is a privacy issue, to anyone without the consent—

Mr. Pat Martin: It's a whole access issue.

Mr. Santo Alborino: Yes, but we're talking about individual information. This is an individual. This is not a branch that has x number of employees, and as we have done in the past, we have provided the names of the individuals in that unit.

We're talking about the home. We're talking about the residence. We're talking about an individual's right to that privacy. We're not saying no; we're just saying let's ensure that we respect those rights, period.

We're not opposed—

Mr. Pat Martin: What about the voters' list in an election campaign?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Your time is up, actually. Thank you very much.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think you've explained yourself. Thank you.

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

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. That was the point I was trying to make.

I think the Canadian Bankers Association is in essence telling us that they don't disagree with the fact that we're putting off-site workers into the legislation. As with anything that's brand new, you're signalling that you want to be careful to make sure people's rights are maintained.

So would it be fair to say that the Canadian Bankers Association is saying that this is a good process to undertake, as far as the code changes are concerned, but in fact you're just signalling you want to be careful that certain parameters are met, and of course, that would be up to the Canada Labour Relations Board to make sure we do the right thing.

• 1900

Mr. Alan Young: As I said in my opening remarks, our position is that it's really premature to be dealing with the issue of off-site workers. I think it's generally recognized that it's a new, developing area and there's a real information gap, and we think sound public policy is made when there's sufficient information in people's hands—people like yourselves—so that appropriate decisions can be made.

Our view is that it is something that requires study and analysis. Then we can have it addressed in Parliament through the legislative process.

Mr. Robert Nault: You're not suggesting, though, that you don't have enough respect or faith in the board being able to have enough understanding of the fact that the way the economy is changing, with off-site workers becoming more of a permanent fixture in our landscape, that we need to deal with that particular issue, because at this point, and I would agree with you, it isn't a huge part of the workforce that is subject to the Canada Labour Code. But the fact remains that it's becoming an issue, and we are putting it into legislation now in order to have some jurisprudence as it relates to labour law in order that it can be.... That's what Canada's renowned for, quite frankly.

If you think about this for a minute, Canada has always led the world in putting these kinds of things up front and working our way through them. That's why we have a good balance in our labour laws, except for a couple of provinces that I won't name. The fact remains that we've been able to have a good solid balance because of our ability to be thinking ahead a little and putting it into law.

Of course the whole issue will be brought forward and people will be able to make presentations at the board as to what they think is acceptable and not acceptable. Do you not think that's a good thing to do? Or should we wait until there's a crisis in a particular area before we move on a particular file?

Mr. Alan Young: But we're not so naive as to believe that everything the banking industry says, MPs are going to agree with. Therefore, in our submission we put forward our opening view that it would behove us, we think, to gather more information about this emerging area before making public policy decisions.

However, if you disagree with the view—and it would appear that there is some disagreement with our view—we believe some changes should be made. One of the fundamental changes, we sincerely believe, is to embed the principle of consent to protect the privacy of employees.

Mr. Robert Nault: With all due respect, the Canadian Banking Association overall doesn't have a lot of experience in the labour field, because you don't have a lot of unions of your own. So it's pretty tough to say that you would in fact know how it would work. You can understand our reluctance to accept your concern at face value, to some extent, when you have only 2,500 employees or so who are unionized, out of 221,400. You're basically telling us that you've been very good at keeping the unions out.

That's not to say you're not doing a good job paying your employees. I'm not going to want to get into that.

But I just want to bring up one matter, Madam Chairman—just one—and that's the whole issue of being able to deal with the certification. I'm quite surprised that so many people keep bringing up the whole issue of certification when it's used so little at the board in this country. That is a very extreme measure, used rarely by the board, to deal with improprieties. It almost sounds, the way we hear people come forward, as if it's used on a daily basis by the board. My friends in the opposition to some extent make it sound as though certification with less than 50% happens at the board on a daily basis, when in fact you could probably count on one hand the number of times it's happened in our country in the last year or so.

My point is that it's used in extreme cases. It's used in other jurisdictions. Why would you think we would have to change gears now if in fact it's been proven by the board over the years that it's used very judiciously? It's not like “Here's a little bit of information we got from the union and therefore we're going to certify these folks because they got letters in their mailboxes telling them it didn't want them to be unionized”, or something to that extent. It's a much more serious matter than that. I think until now we have downplayed the seriousness of the accusation that is made by a union, as relates to its employer, about those kinds of allegations of not treating their employees fairly. Any board worth its salt would be very careful and not just automatically assume that's a fait accompli.

• 1905

I just wanted to make that point, more as a comment than anything else, because I've been hearing for the last number of days and weeks people making presentations, and it's almost as if you put certification in the act, the board will start doing it every single week or something. We all know that's not the case.

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

Mr. Santo Alborino: I have just very brief comments on the two issues you brought. First of all, I would disagree with you that we have very little experience with unions. Over the last 20 years we have probably dealt with more unions than any other industry, because we've had every single one of them approach the banking industry, and we've been able—and I say this with pride—to work with each one of them. So I really don't share your opinion with respect to our experience with unions.

We've dealt with most of them and have been able to maintain good and cordial relationships. The fact that there aren't that many today is a choice the employees have made.

With respect to the second point, the same argument could be served back to you. Why do we need to introduce this type of legislation if, using your own words, one would say the board has judicially—and I would agree with you—used this type of remedial certification very rarely? As a matter of fact, all we're really saying is allow the employees to have a choice and a say. That's all. We are not against the fact that certification needs to occur when the majority of the employees, and the true wishes of the employees, are recognized. It's as simple as that. I don't see it as a major issue.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mr. Nault. Thank you, Mr. Alborino. Thank you to all the representatives of the Canadian Bankers Association. We thank you for coming all this way and for putting your very thorough briefs in front of us.

Mr. Alan Young: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to welcome Mr. Doug Willy, who is representing the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines.

Mr. Willy, please go ahead.

Mr. Doug Willy (President, Northwest Territory Chamber of Mines): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I would like to thank all the members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to appear. I'm here by myself because it's not that easy for people in the Northwest Territories to make it to Ottawa to talk. So I was the lucky guy.

• 1910

As the chairperson has said, my name is Doug Willy and I am the president of the NWT Chamber of Mines this year. Our organization represents a variety of companies involved in exploration and mining in the Northwest Territories. Our membership also includes service companies and many individuals who make their living directly and indirectly from the mining industry.

Minister MacAulay made an important statement in his presentation to you last week. He said, “We have all agreed that Part I of the Canada Labour Code is in need of...revision so that this new Act can meet the demands of the 21st Century.” We couldn't agree more. To that end, I wish to tell you what demands will be placed on our large industry in the 21st century, and how we need an effective labour code to help us meet them. I would just add that the NWT is the only jurisdiction wherein everybody who works up there is covered by the Canada Labour Code.

Before I begin speaking on specifics, I think it would be helpful if I provided a bit of background on where we come from—literally, where we make our homes—as this is as important to understanding our perspective on this bill.

The Northwest Territories is a unique jurisdiction in Canada. Covering one-third of Canada's land mass, it is a huge area. The combination of size, rugged geography, and harsh climate are formidable barriers to development. As a result, we have the most poorly developed infrastructure in Canada.

These barriers also limit our options for substantial economic development. It's clear, for example, that the north will never be a major producer of grain or of forest products, nor will it be a manufacturing centre or another high-tech Silicon Valley. It is no surprise, then, that mining is a very important industry in the Northwest Territories and, despite the geographic obstacles, our industry has grown.

Today, mining is the NWT's largest industry, producing approximately $800 million in metals annually. When combined with exploration investment, our industry is virtually a $1-billion industry. With some new mining developments, we foresee mining's value reaching as high as $2 billion annually in the not too distant future. Continued growth in the northern mining industry is important to all northerners.

While the NWT's population is small, comprising approximately 65,000 people, their demand for training, employment, and business opportunities is large. Increasingly, northerners, and particularly the aboriginal northerners, are calling on the mining industry to provide them with more jobs and benefits. When we look at the high birth rates in the north today, particularly amongst the aboriginal community, it becomes patently clear that we must sustain mining growth well into the 21st century.

As you know, the federal government recently responded to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples by releasing Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan. In it, the federal government, on behalf of all Canadians, committed to setting a new course in its policies for aboriginal people. If I might quote from parts of it:

The federal government is committed to ensuring that Aboriginal people share in resource-based opportunities now emerging in the North. A...challenge will be to ensure that Aboriginal people and communities share in the wealth and benefits expected to flow from major resource development in the NWT.

As an important generator of significant jobs and business opportunities, we support the increase of northern and aboriginal benefits. However, an effective Canada Labour Code will be integral to the mining industry being able to provide these long-term benefits to northern residents. We are not convinced that the proposed legislation will help us.

We have several key areas of concern with the bill. I know other presenters will also intervene in some detail on similar concerns. I will keep my comments to you today focused on three issues of particular concern to us as a northern industry. They are union certification, replacement workers, and privacy protection.

The first issue is union certification, and I wish to offer two perspectives. First, union certification without the requirement of secret-ballot, majority support is undemocratic. This is especially so when union certification currently can be obtained through outdated card signing, which is open to undue influence, pressure, and intimidation. If card signing was the ideal way of seeking majority support, I have no doubt that the Canadian political system would have adopted it long ago. Can you imagine deciding an election campaign on the basis of which politician can obtain the most signatures from constituents while door-knocking?

• 1915

Fundamentally, we are against union certification without a majority, secret ballot vote.

My second perspective on certification relates to the Canada Industrial Relations Board having the authority to certify the union, even if most employees are imposed. This could happen under the proposed Canada Labour Code if the board believes an employer acted inappropriately during an organizing drive.

There is a unique northern perspective on this issue. Aboriginal peoples, who the new northern mines will focus on training and hiring, are known for reaching decisions through consensus-building and majority support. This, in our view, further reinforces our position that a secret-ballot democratic process is needed before a union is certified. If the board determines that an employer has not acted appropriately, the board should not just award certification to the union without there being a majority support of the workers, as evidenced by the secret ballot.

The finding of inappropriate behaviour can be remedied by, for example, allowing the union more time to explain its position to the employees or simply ordering another vote.

As an industry that is seeking new opportunities by hiring and training aboriginal employees, we believe we need to be sensitive to that key group we are trying to reach and at the same time uphold democratic principles that are very important to all Canadians.

A replacement worker in northern mining has unique needs. We know that there are some who would raise the NWT Giant Mine strike as prime justification for anti-replacement worker legislation. To do so would be to oversimplify the complicated conditions surrounding that strike. No official inquiry has been held to determine what initiated the strike and the resulting actions taken by both the employer and the union. This is unfortunate, because from our perspective a secret-ballot vote may have reversed the outcome, as could have earlier forced mediation.

Our position on restricting the use of replacement workers has nothing to do with that unfortunate piece of history. The reality of northern mining today is that new mines are located in very remote parts of Canada, accessible only with difficulty. Historical practice was to develop transportation, hydro power, and even entire communities for remote mine sites.

Today, however, this is no longer done due largely to high costs. New mines are stand-alone camps with workers commuting by air for variable work rotations. The mines generate their own electricity and are serviced by difficult seasonal transportation links. Two of our mines in the high Arctic are serviced by ice-breaking cargo ships with about a five-month shipping window. Two of our gold mines and our newest diamond mine must be serviced by a three-month ice road that crosses hundreds of kilometres of frozen lakes and tundra.

Their stand-alone, remote nature means that northern mines must transport, over a very short time, an entire year's inventory of such items as fuel, explosives, and other supplies, which then must be stored on-site. These mines are particularly vulnerable to work stoppages, particularly during the short seasonal shipping windows.

We are concerned that these operations are particularly vulnerable to work stoppage during the short shipping season. A union could use this shipping vulnerability as a leverage for its demands. By going on strike during this period, a union would essentially hold a mining company to ransom. In the worst-case scenario, the mine could be forced to close. Even if only part of the essential freight missed the transportation window, the mine's viability could be undermined.

Should the mine be forced to make costly concessions to strikers, mining costs would be driven up and the life of the operation would be shortened. Neither of these scenarios would serve employers, workers, or the NWT community.

As the bill now stands, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would have to decide if the company hired replacement workers to undermine the union or to legitimately support the viability of their operation. Given the board's history, we know it would rule in favour of the union.

• 1920

The only viable solution we see to correct this imbalance is to allow the company the unfettered use of replacement workers or to ban strikes during the shipping periods.

Privacy protection. We believe privacy is an important freedom. Our new northern mines and those in the future, for the most part, will be fly-in, fly-out operations. This presents problems for unions in getting easy access to all the employees on site. We do not believe that employers should have to hand over lists of employees, with their addresses, to unions trying to certify the operation.

While we are encouraged that changes have been made to the bill to allow the employer to transmit union information to its employees, the bill still allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to require the employer to divulge names and home addresses of off-site employees. We do not support this.

At the very least the bill should be amended to provide workers the right to direct their employer not to divulge their name and address or any information about their employment to another party, be it a union or another party.

From our perspective, the bill remains seriously flawed in three areas related to union certification, the use of replacement workers, and the rights of privacy. When taken in isolation, each of these has a potential to limit employment opportunities for northerners, and in particular aboriginal peoples. When taken together, these three issues could weaken the viability of a vibrant northern mining industry. This would do little to serve the interests of the residents of the NWT and in fact would limit their future opportunities.

From our perspective, this bill needs to be changed in order to provide an effective labour code to meet the demands being placed on our industry for the 21st century.

Thank you.

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

We will now begin the round of questions and comments. We have about 17 minutes left. We'll begin with Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Willy, for a very good presentation.

We've had groups come before us in these hearings who have tried to convince us that unless we come in with a complete ban on replacement workers, there's likely to be a lot more violence on the picket lines. We even heard one group talk about bombs and deaths. They somehow imply, although they can't show us any evidence to substantiate what they're telling us, that a complete ban on replacement workers would make picket lines and strikes a lot more peaceful and of even shorter duration. I wonder if you'd like to comment on that.

Mr. Doug Willy: Very simply, Mr. Johnston, a complete ban would put us out of business.

Seventy-five percent of our mines depend on some sort of window for resupply—and we're talking about significant resupply: 50 million to 100 million litres of fuel. There's no option. There's a window, and in fact this year the window won't be three months for the winter road that services the new BHP mine—it's less than three months—so it isn't an option. You have to remember that it affects not only the mines in the Northwest Territories, but there are a lot of communities in the Northwest Territories that depend on their resupply for the same reasons.

Mr. Dale Johnston: No doubt we'll blame the shortness of the winter road on El Niño. It gets blamed for most everything else.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I find it very interesting that particularly the labour people would support and suggest that we have a total ban on replacement workers. In other words, they support taking away the employer's right to operate, yet they would never dream of a total ban on strikes, because that's their main tool. That just wouldn't be right.

I know a total ban on replacement workers would mean that there just simply wouldn't be any jobs at all for them in the future.

• 1925

I'm very pleased to see that you've brought up the privacy issue. I myself am very concerned about that. The automatic certification of the unions is certainly something we're going to try to amend.

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

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): At the outset, I have to tell you that once again, there is no French version of this brief.

I will ask three questions in a row, Mr. Willy. Are most employees unionized in the North West Territories? You state in your brief that given the history of the Board, you believe it would rule in favour of the union in any decision pertaining to replacement workers. I also understand that you quite simply want to be allowed, under the Canada Labour Code, to hire replacement workers. Do you realize the violence that could flow from that? Also do you realize that this could prolong labour conflicts?

[English]

Mr. Doug Willy: I apologize for not having it translated into French, but our working languages are many, and we've just been using this one. We will do it if you require it.

Are the workers unionized right now? Historically there are more non-union mining employees in the Northwest Territories than union. The unionized mines are the mines that are located in Yellowknife and are not remote.

It's one of our points. One of the mines in Yellowknife that has been unionized and has been in operation since 1936 has four aboriginal employees on its payroll. Another operating mine that is non-union and that has been operating since 1982 had aboriginals make up over 20% of its employees. One of the limiting factors to aboriginal employment has been the unions, because of the seniority clauses, preferential training, and so on. So the majority of the employees are non-union in the mining business.

With regard to the history of the board, we did a review of decisions in the Northwest Territories by the Canada Industrial Labour Relations Board. Far and away the majority of the decisions have been in favour of the union. I don't know what the history is across Canada, but in the Northwest Territories that is the fact.

With regard to the replacement workers, at present none of the mines that are on a resupply are unionized, so there won't be a problem. If we do our job right, I guess it would never be a problem, but potentially, it could be a problem. The Cominco mine in the Northwest Territories was certified a year ago. They still have not received or negotiated their first collective agreement, so we don't know, but our position is that we have to have it.

Whether it leads to more violence...I don't think that's necessarily true. There are cases across Canada where replacement workers have been used and it hasn't led to violence. We only refer to those that do. I don't think one follows the other.

I think there are a number of industries we need where workers are hired and it works. But to be able to go on strike the day before the winter road opens means suicide for the companies. I don't think it's really negotiating in good faith. I mean, how can you say it's unfair? I don't think it would extend the labour disputes.

I agree with some of the points the transportation people brought up about the workers on the west coast, how they could virtually move from one operation to another to keep the strike going against one particular part of the business. That could happen in our industry as well.

But, no, if we were unionized and certified and we couldn't hire replacement workers, the north would suffer. You have to appreciate that we're in a totally different situation from what you are down here. In most of the communities you go to one restaurant. You can't have fifteen restaurants. You have one option.

• 1930

Well, that's what we're saying: you have one option. If you don't get it from that store, you don't get it. That's what we have to realize.

In the Northwest Territories, we get a little bit emotional over this sometimes, because in the majority of the times, our laws are those laws that are good for southern Canada. We don't get a kick at the kitty. We're saying in this particular incident that you have to take in our unique situation.

We did offer another suggestion that if there was a clause in there that said that in a remote situation you cannot strike during resupply season, then that's another option. But we would prefer the replacement worker one so we could hire them.

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

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Willy, for being here.

I've been sharing my time on a couple of committees: agriculture and HRD. Certainly, you make me think of when we did hearings in 27 cities over 35 days in 10 provinces and 2 territories and the eastern Arctic on one swing.

I won't tell you all the stories of our wonderful experience in the Northwest Territories. I've been there before and since. There's great hospitality and great people.

When we were there that day at the hotel, there was a group protesting, and rightfully so. That's their right. They offered us the opportunity to visit a local soup kitchen. We did, and it was terrific. It was like going to a country dinner in my riding. There was roast caribou, homemade soup, and homemade biscuits. It couldn't have been better. It's a wonderful area.

I think the second diamond mine is now officially to be launched, and I congratulate you on all the activity. You're going to make a great contribution—continually make a great contribution—to the economy of this country and all that.

But I just wonder about this replacement worker theory and belief of yours. You know, it could work in reverse to what you're saying too. You're going to have a great increase in the aboriginal workforce, which is great. I expect we're going to see that with the diamond mines, the one that's started and the next one, etc.

You mention here that it would be suicide on a company if they went on strike according to the seasonal weather, but what about the workers? As we get this increase in the aboriginal workforce, and all the other good people, these people don't want to commit suicide against the company that has just invested in their area. With a good, legitimate union, you may have topics for discussion.

Certainly, a lot of things can happen. I've been there on both sides. But I think you're twisting that, whereas it could be just as well twisted the other way.

I want to ask you whether you do not respect these workers more than that. I know people who live in your area, and they want to see the increased activity with the economy. Nowhere do I feel the sense that they want to damage the opportunities.

Mr. Doug Willy: That's a good point. We've got to look at the three points together and not each of them individually to address it.

If the clause does not pass that would allow certification without a majority vote, we won't have to worry about unions. The aboriginal people, in my experience, are not going to be looking for unions. Therefore, if we do not have the unions, then we will not be worried about replacement workers.

So if you take each one individually, as I had pointed out there, then you might come up with some different conclusions, but if we don't have a union, we're not in a replacement worker situation.

I'll give you a scenario. We're going to have problems. The new diamond mine is going to have problems recruiting more than 50% of their employees initially from the north, because it's impossible to get tradespeople in the Northwest Territories. So they will have to recruit say 25% of their employees from the south.

Now with the industry in Saskatchewan and Alberta, with the way it was going until a few months ago, we're going to be recruiting people to work in the north who are tradespeople. A lot of them will be union people. So you could have 25% of your employees who are skilled southerners and 75% of your employees who are northerners, but if those 25% sign cards and file for unfair labour practice, they could have a union certified with only 25% of the employees. Then you may work in some sort of a replacement worker situation. But we're saying if we do have a secret ballot, we're quite confident we will never be in that situation.

• 1935

Mr. Larry McCormick: Just a thought. As I read The Northern Miner last evening—and it was probably two weeks old—about the second official kick-off for the next mine, it came back to the aboriginal workforce, which will help with jobs immensely in your area.

But in other areas, where we have a lot of the aboriginal workforce in mining, they belong to unions. If the predictions are correct that there will be several new mines in the NWT, these companies will have owners from around the world, and that's great to see them putting investment into Canada. But when this happens, this workforce will expand and the opportunity will be given to people from the north, not just the NWT. You mention how the aboriginal people want to usually work with or within consensus, but I think you're underestimating the fact that as these companies grow, all people will be interested in what a union might do for them, and it's a legitimate reason when there's activity from international companies.

I just wonder if you would give me your comment on that.

Mr. Doug Willy: I wish you would tell me what other mines employ a significant number of aboriginal people.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Evidently, one in Mr. Nault's riding here has at least 20%.

Mr. Doug Willy: You should look into it in depth, then. We've studied that program significantly, and if you're looking at a couple of new ones, Cluff Lake in Saskatchewan is an excellent example with over 60%. It got that way because it was a non-union mine.

I don't think this is part of your question, but on your reference to international companies, the new mine that will be coming along, Diavik Diamond Mines, is 40% owned by Canadians. The BHP mine is 49% owned by Canadians. So your talk of international means nothing when you're mining in Canada, particularly from an employee perspective.

These companies now are global. They are probably the best employers there are. In fact, the process these international companies is following to get their permits is probably better than a lot of the processes national companies follow in different jurisdictions. So I think that has absolutely no significance to it.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Just a closing sentence.

Yes, I respect that those are good companies. I happen to know a bit about several of those companies and I see a lot of good things happening. But I'm sure our honourable colleague, Mr. Martin, will have a very good question because of his experience working in a mine. I have worked in and around mines as a self-employed person as late as September 1997, but I'll pass on my time. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Actually, Mr. Willy's time is almost up. I will allow one quick and succinct question from Mr. Martin and a quick and succinct answer.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's not fair. I guess it is fair, actually.

The only comment I would make is there is no general ban on replacement workers in here. The onus is on the union to show the company is using scabs, as we call them, to try to undermine the union. In a case like your examples, I cannot see the labour board ruling in favour of the union if you're legitimately hiring replacement workers, as is your right, to bring food and supplies to the mine to keep it open. There couldn't be....

Mr. Doug Willy: Does it have the right to bring in replacement workers?

Mr. Pat Martin: In the proposed legislation, it will be a right for employers to hire replacement workers, as long as it's not for subversive purposes. So I don't think that argument should cause too much worry for you, Mr. Willy. That's all I have time to go into, I guess.

• 1940

Mr. Doug Willy: My reply is simply that our research shows that most of the decisions made by the board go with the union, and that's simply what we stated before.

Mr. Pat Martin: This will be a more representational board this time, too. That might be of some comfort to you. There'll be labour and management on the board, with a neutral chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much, Mr. Willy. I think we've enjoyed having you here from so far away, with your unique perspective on the bill. It's very interesting.

Now if we could speed right along, we're running a little bit late. I would like to encourage the representatives of the Alberta Farmers Group to come quickly to the table and we'll get started immediately.

Good evening, gentlemen. Not only are you representing the Alberta Farmers Group, but each and every one of you is a farmer, I note by my sheet here. We would invite you, whichever one of you would like to start, to begin now.

Mr. Garry Smolik (Alberta Farmers Group): Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members.

We are here, of course, as you know, as farmers. First, I'll introduce Gordon Smillie, a grain and oilseeds farmer who lives on a family farm in Bassano, Alberta, east of Calgary. Also with me is Richard Haydu; he's also involved in a family farm and his farm operation is near Lloydminster, which is in the northeastern part of Alberta. My name is Garry Smolik and I'm the oddball because I come from British Columbia. I farm near Dawson Creek on a family operated farm near Dawson Creek in northeastern British Columbia.

Before we get started, I'd like to apologize to the members here for not having copies of our submission available in both official languages. We were very limited by time, and I certainly hope they can be made available to those of you who wish to have them.

Also, I would like to apologize for the few typographical errors. Some of us find it hard to coordinate both fingers and our brain at the same time.

With that, thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before this committee. We would like to focus our attention on proposed section 87.7 of the proposed amendments. We are very supportive of that particular subsection.

As farmers, we're unable to directly contribute to the labour negotiations that affect our livelihood, but must rely on government to consider our interest. We appreciate this chance to express our views. We represent producers from all areas of Alberta and northeastern B.C. Our group is very diverse, as is our industry, and we have very different opinions on a great many issues. However, it's also very true that we certainly have strong feelings about labour issues and how they have affected our families, our income, and our industry in the past. We've been active participants in meetings and discussions over revisions to the Canada Labour Code. We are not labour relations experts but approach these inquiries as grassroots producers who need input to the solutions that we hope will arise from these consultations.

Over the last three years we felt labour issues were so important that we've taken considerable time away from our farming operations to participate in the discussions concerning the problems at the west coast. In August 1995, we presented a brief to the Industrial Inquiry Commission into Industrial Relations at West Coast Ports. We were also invited to participate in the round table discussions organized by then labour minister, Alfonso Gagliano, in April 1996, and more recently, this past January, we appeared in Vancouver as a part of a green industry group that met with Minister MacAulay and Minister Vanclief.

• 1945

We feel that the message from producers has been heard and understood, and we do appreciate that. Something must be done to improve this present situation, however.

When he was chairman of the House Standing Committee on Transport, MP Stan Keyes made some interesting comments about labour management relations in the port section of the committee's national marine strategy, and I quote:

The organization of both labour and management in our major ports is cumbersome and inflexible and there is a seeming inability to resolve outstanding issues. The collective bargaining process does not appear to be working as the issues never get resolved because of back-to-work legislation.

He goes on to say:

It has come to this—the Canadian economy can no longer sustain any labour disruptions to port operations, even a day or two is becoming too costly. Another way has to be found to deal with waterfront disputes than back-to-work legislation.

Then he concludes:

The status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable....

We very much agree with those comments. What we have today is really not an option for the future.

The immediate costs of a disruption in grain movement are crippling to us as producers, but even more significant is the loss of our reputation as reliable producers and suppliers. The long-term costs of the latter are incalculable, both to our industry and the Canadian economy in general.

There should be no misunderstanding; it is the producer who ultimately pays the entire cost of transportation from the farm to tidewater.

In today's economy, agriculture and other sectors are in the midst of revolutionary times. World economic factors are forcing change on all of us. As Canadian farmers, we must compete with many strong global competitors. Recent trade agreements, both in North America and the world, have removed barriers to trade and have forced us to become increasingly aware of the competitive issues we must face in order to market our production.

We are adjusting rapidly, but part of that adjustment requires the cooperation of other sectors of our grain-handling and transportation system, and I think this was acknowledged when the phrase “from the sprout to the spout” was coined in some of the recent discussions.

Over the years, our ability to deliver our products to offshore customers in a timely fashion has been hindered. As a result, we are no longer viewed as reliable suppliers. Much of the damage to our reputation has been done by labour disputes.

In the past decade, grain in Vancouver has been stopped once by a dispute between grain terminal workers and the terminal operators. In the same time, it has been shut down four times by disputes between longshoremen who load grain vessels and their employer, the B.C. Maritime Employers Association. Three of those four stoppages were ended by legislation.

We do not always understand the details behind negotiations before labour disruptions, but we certainly do immediately feel the consequences of lost sales and lost opportunities. It only takes a few days of a work stoppage at export ports for the effects of a labour dispute to be felt in the country. If the grain stops moving through the port, elevators quickly fill up and we can no longer deliver our grain, and of course we only get paid when we deliver.

Once the boats start loading again, it can take weeks for space to open up in elevators and for us to be able to deliver our products once again. Sometimes this catches us in a busy season, such as spring, where we are unable to deliver and meet commitments because of other opportunities that we have to take advantage of.

Even after the movement is fully resumed, we are affected. Farmers pay the cost of the settlement that is imposed, even though we had no opportunity to influence the settlement.

We appreciate that the government has taken steps to improve the collective bargaining process and perhaps prevent work stoppages and legislated settlements. In particular, we think proposed section 87.7 of the bill would help to remove one of the biggest bottlenecks in the ports, the use of the ability to stop grain movement by the longshore and their employers to achieve government intervention.

We'll deal with a bit of the opposition to it. Opponents of proposed section 87.7 are concerned with what they call the unique treatment grain under this proposed legislation. But the grain industry is in fact unique, and not only because it is food and because the world continues to exist on an 18- to 21-day grain supply, but also because of the political nature of production, transportation, and marketing. This is well recognized and has a detrimental effect on labour negotiations at the west coast, and ultimately a very negative effect on our industry.

The political nature of grain prevents reasonable contract settlements without strikes, lockouts, and back-to-work legislation. In fact, the uniqueness of grain has been very detrimental to labour peace at the west coast during contract negotiations. In our opinion, the inclusion of proposed section 87.7 will help bring grain back to a more level playing field.

The Industrial Inquiry Commission in 1995 wrote in its final report:

...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. Everyone knows that when this card is played, it almost guarantees speedy intervention by Parliament. This in turn reduces the risk of the parties to have to face the hardships of 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.

• 1950

As you can tell, farmers are frustrated and, more importantly, our customers are frustrated with us. They are looking elsewhere for supply because we have become unreliable. Japan, for example, has raised serious concerns, and despite our best efforts to reassure them, they have purchased over 200,000 tonnes of canola from Australia and are now encouraging canola production in Argentina and the United States. This market is being threatened not by drought, not by disease, but by our inability to be a reliable supplier of these products to our customers.

Trade barriers are coming down around the world. Government financial support for farmers is dropping. We must therefore accept prices from the world market. If we lose a sale, it is gone. The result is more carryover and lower prices.

In summary, continuous movement of grain is essential to us as producers. We pay all the costs but are unable to have the influence necessary to keep grain moving. Solutions are mandatory and we believe proposed section 87.7 will address some of our concerns. The future of the western agricultural economy and the producers who are part of it are counting on your support. We need the passage of Bill C-19 with proposed section 87.7 intact in order to provide the reliability and security that we as farmers and farm families need to operate our industry today and to provide the stability for our children who will be in charge tomorrow.

Thank you very much. I would also note that my friends and partners in this process will help answer any questions you may have.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much. We'll begin with Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for a very good presentation. I notice you are listed as farmers. That was my occupation too before I got to this part of the world.

I think one of the assumptions that has been made is that proposed section 87.7 is going to ensure that the grain goes from the sprout to the spout, but it's not going to ensure that. It may be a small step in the right direction, and I have suggested many times—as a matter of fact, I took the time to make a submission to the west coast ports inquiry—that what is needed here is a dispute-settlement mechanism that would encourage the two parties to bargain earnestly and to settle their own disputes. If they couldn't settle their disputes, they would then have to mutually agree to an arbitrator who would be presented with the things they had agreed on, the outstanding things they had not agreed on, and their final position on both of them. This is a mechanism that has been used by the federal government several times after it has used back-to-work legislation.

I do not support back-to-work legislation. As you very rightfully point out here, it has been used by both management and labour as an assurance. It doesn't matter whether we go out on a strike because we know we won't be out very long or we won't be locked out very long. The government will reconvene, if necessary, to legislate us back to work because of the powerful political qualities of the grain.

If final offer selection or some kind of dispute-settlement mechanism like the one I've just described is sufficient to use once you've legislated the parties back to work, why not put it into legislation so that it will be there as a tool? It can be used equally by labour or management, and it will get those sides close together. If you have to submit your final position on those things and you might take all of one or all of the other, your positions are going to wind up so close together that they're going to resolve the issues and there isn't going to be a work stoppage at all. That is a win-win situation, not only for the grain producers but for the alfalfa dehydrators, the lumber producers, the potash producers, the petroleum industry, the coal mining industry, all those people who have to use the west coast port.

• 1955

Why do I suggest something as “drastic”, as some would possibly say, as final offer selection arbitration? Because we do not have a dozen or so ports to choose from. We don't even have two ports to choose from. We have one port on the west coast. It is the only game in town. Management and labour out there know that's the only game in town, just like the post office. You don't have an alternative to the post office. It's first-class mail in this country.

So the solution, I think, is to put into place a mechanism that is going to encourage those two parties to continue to provide services, and not only to continue to provide the services but to reach an agreement.

I realize there's no question in that but it certainly leaves you a lot of room to comment.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Actually, you've used up your four minutes, Mr. Johnston, with your speech. However, I feel that it's such a strong opinion we should let those people, who I don't think agree with you, respond.

Mr. Dale Johnston: You might be surprised, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Gordon R. Smillie (Farmer, Alberta Farmers Group): Thank you, Madam Chairman and Mr. Johnston, for the question—almost.

We realize there are about 29 unions involved in actually getting grain moved from where we see it on the farm and in our bins right out to the port and onto a marketable ship.

We're hoping this is a first step. This has been the big plug in the industry as far as we're concerned, the big plug in the pipeline that we have to use to get our grain to port, and we're hoping this legislation will solve that problem.

Final offer selection is something that I think we as farmers haven't really been very agreeable to in the past. We've been faced with back-to-work legislation many times. The arbitrators that are appointed in back-to-work legislation, which would be no different from those appointed in final offer selection, don't really take our side of the picture into account. They look at the labour unions, they look at what the average increase in settlements is during a year, and they may take a look at the terminal operators and what profits they're making in a year, but I don't think any of them relate back to what we're doing on the farm, what our costs are, whether the price of grain is up or down, and whether a combine's worth $100,00 or $200,000.

We're very uncomfortable with having that put up in front of one person for a decision. We feel that final offer selection is really not a way to get conciliation at the ports. You're having a winner and a loser in these situations, and a lot of the time the arbitrator will pick too close to one side of the available options or too close to the other, and that doesn't promote labour peace, which is what we're looking for. We want labour peace so we can have a continued flow of grain out to the coast to supply the markets we've developed.

Most of the time when final offer selection comes into place both parties take an unrealistically high position in advance to present to the arbitrator. I don't think that is realistic at all. That doesn't promote labour peace. Final offer selection is not something we'd be in favour of.

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

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: As Mr. Johnston was saying, many groups representing major industries have come to us to oppose proposed subsection 87.7 and have been somewhat jealous of special provisions granted to the grain industry.

If you had to defend your point of view or to engage in a debate with these people in a round table, what would you respond to those who argue that you benefit from an advantage that is not granted to other industries that are major exporters, that must deal with just in time delivery of their products, that are operating under very strict delivery constraints and that are threatened by a labour conflict? Why are these measures justified in your case and not for some of the others?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Smillie: Thank you for your question.

What I respond to them is that...you talk about a special status for grain, and as far as I'm concerned, grain has had less than normal status over the years. Grain has always been treated as the pawn by the balance of the materials and products being exported through the port. Labour unions, along with all the employers and users of the port, know that if they strike, grain will eventually put it right back into a legislated back-to-work situation. They have no reason, as a union, to go back and bargain in good faith with the rest of the businesses.

• 2000

If grain is put on more of a level playing field by giving it this special status, then I think it's going to force the unions into bargaining in good faith with everyone. I also think that would be to the benefit of every industry that uses the port.

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

Mrs. Chamberlain.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm really glad to see you gentlemen here. You're a little bit like the cavalry coming, finally.

As well, I also met with you in Vancouver. I was very disappointed you didn't remember that, but I'll get over it.

One of the things to note for the committee...and I spoke of the farmers there, and how eloquently you spoke to the issues. Minister MacAulay and I were there, and Lyle Vanclief also came to some of the meetings. The ministers' being there shows, one, they're extremely interested, and two, they have really taken a hands-on view toward working and hearing people speak of these issues to really understand and to know what's going on. I think both ministers have to be credited for that. I know Mr. MacAulay has heard countless and countless and countless hearings.

The way the government feels now with this bill is that there are trade-offs. Not everybody will love every single component of this bill, but it really is a piece of the negotiations. The bill is a very finely balanced, finely tuned piece of legislation.

One of the reasons I was really glad to see you is that it struck me, when we were in Vancouver, where we met with almost 150 people that day—we had three round tables—that you people, the farmers, were the ones who hit me the most.

We often talk in Parliament about being and representing the average person, the average worker—not the rich, not the poor, but everyone. We often look to that balance, of who is the middle person. You people really struck me there. The speeches and the cases you made for this, and your talking about your livelihoods, were all extremely powerful.

You've said a number of things here tonight about grain being the ace in the hole. You've talked about labour peace, which I think is so very important.

One of the things we haven't really brought out here is that in 1999 we're prepared to review proposed section 87.7. We will look at that again. We want to get it right. We know this is a very important piece of legislation, and we want it to be right, but I think it's extremely important now that we move ahead with it, as you've said. This peace has to be tried. We have to try to get that labour peace. We believe this will do it.

Levelling the playing field is what this legislation is all about. It's not special status for grain. It simply is to put them on that equal footing. Because still, all the components will be negotiated. Only that one piece is being taken out and not being used as that weapon any more.

I really want to thank you for showing up. I think it's really important that this committee does hear from the farmers. I really appreciate your presence.

If there's anything you want to add, please feel free.

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

Mr. Garry Smolik: I really do appreciate your comments. I know there wasn't a question there.

We felt very good about our participation in Vancouver. We felt very good about the minister's reception for us. I believe you've hit on a very important point—that is, unless we have negotiation, and understanding of one another's positions, we will never achieve something that is comfortable and suitable for all of us. In this position, we have chosen to support proposed section 87.7.

As you may recall, in the industrial inquiry commission by Messrs. Jamieson and Greyell, they actually recommended that the longshore not be part of the grain handling between the terminal and the vessel.

• 2005

So this is a compromise, of course, but we also understand the importance of the jobs and so on of the longshore people who are in Vancouver. So we're very willing to support this part of the legislation as a first step and as an opportunity to progress from where we are. We hope it has very positive effects.

If it doesn't, then as you say, it's a starting point. We will try it. We certainly do hope it works. As we also said, we're not experts and no one can guarantee anything, of course, but we do feel that this is a very good chance and opportunity to make things better. That's why we're supporting it.

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

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Just a really brief comment. I also thought it was an excellent presentation, and I appreciate it. I think you should take some comfort in the fact that at least four of the five political parties in the House of Commons today are working for the speedy passage of Bill C-19. We're trying to put it in place as quickly as possible, and the NDP is certainly one of them.

This is my other comment. You mentioned that the docks were shut down four times in the last decade, I guess. I'm trying to find the passage: “three of these four work stoppages went by that decision”. So it was four times, I guess, in the last 10 years. One of those was actually by the longshore foremen, not just the ILWU, I believe.

But in the more recent ones, the union wanted to keep on handling the grain in the strike. It wasn't until the employer changed it from a strike to a lockout and locked them out that they actually stopped handling the grain. That's just for the record.

I hope you can stick around for tomorrow, because the business manager of the ILWU will be giving a presentation, I believe, at about 9.30 a.m. It should be kind of interesting to get their point of view on that.

Other than that I don't have anything else to add. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Would you like to respond?

Mr. Garry Smolik: Only to the fact that we didn't intend to make it look like it was one party or the other. We understand that there are both strikes and lockouts. Really, pointing fingers does no one any good. It's a problem, and we're hoping it can be dealt with in a reasonable and equitable manner. Thank you for your comments.

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

Mr. Nault has a question.

Mr. Robert Nault: I just want to go to the arguments that have been made by a number of other presenters from the other industries out west who have argued against proposed section 87.7.

They have made an alternative proposal. Are you aware of the other proposal they made, and what do you think of it? These other alternatives that have come forward at this committee were not presented at the round tables in Vancouver at all. Are the farmers aware of that?

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Madam Chair, if I may just respond a little bit to that, in fairness to the round tables, what did happen was that we listened to the presenters. We did not put forth any position. There was very little disagreement on this in one fashion or another. This is just to help, because you weren't in on all the round tables. You weren't privy to them.

Mr. Robert Nault: Okay. You might want to look at that, because some of the other organizations out west are flogging another proposal. I'd be interested in your views on that.

The other issue is that, as Mr. Johnston mentioned, this is a partial solution that still doesn't take you out of the woods, so to speak, even though there aren't as many woods out west as there are in northern Ontario.

The fact remains that you didn't push for the position of having a complete exemption from strikes. In fact, you can still have, within your own industry, the elevators, etc.

Was that your original position, and is this a compromise? Or was it your belief in the collective bargaining process? Even though I suspect a number of farmers don't have a lot of unionized workers, the fact is that you must obviously believe in the collective bargaining process to accept this compromise of proposed subsection 87.7.

It would be a lot easier for you to espouse the position of Mr. Johnston and others that you get a complete exemption, so then you wouldn't have to worry about strikes any longer. So I'm very curious as to how you came from the starting point to the position you have today.

• 2010

Mr. Richard Haydu (Farmer, Alberta Farmers Group): Thank you for your question. You bring up an interesting point. There's no doubt about it; probably a lot of farmers have thought about it.

I think we're giving in a little bit because we're looking for labour peace on the west coast. We have to have a win-win situation in the grain industry to be an effective competitor in the world. If we have a disgruntled party because rights have been taken away from them, I don't think it's going to help us out as much as you thought it would with that type of suggestion.

Mr. Gordon Smillie: To add to Mr. Haydu's comment, one thing about it is that farmers are realistic. We are faced with reality every day in the business we're in, and we're faced with reality when we deal with government lots of times too. I know the reality of trying to get the complete grain industry exempted from labour problems, and I don't think that would be very realistic.

We deal with our GSU, the Grain Services Union, at our local elevators in all three of the prairie provinces. We have a good rapport with them. We have our problems with them, but we negotiate those problems out. They need to negotiate, and we're quite willing to negotiate with them through the line companies that run the operations.

The railroad is still a big concern of most western Canadian farmers, which is the next leg in the pipeline. The coast, I would say, has been the worst one over the years. The railroads have not given us as much trouble as Vancouver has. I think we're just trying to be realistic in saying that this is the first step; let's get this one under way first; it will help a lot.

Mr. Robert Nault: This group is important, because of course they come at it from a different perspective.

The other question that would come to mind and the one that would make the most sense to ask is whether you are in agreement with what some of the other witnesses have come forward with, that this is going to create, maybe in the short term, in the first negotiation or two, an extended strike on the west coast in some of the other areas—not yours, because yours will be exempt at the port, but the fact is that in order to get collective bargaining working again, we're going to have to clean the system out.

We all know there has been no collective bargaining, and you put it in your summation very well. I don't think there are too many people who would disagree with that, but there also has to be a reckoning and an understanding when you say that, that in order to get that cleaned up, there's going to have to be some tough negotiating take place. Are you willing and supportive of that happening, based on your position? I think it's important to know that, and for the record.

Mr. Garry Smolik: I think there are a couple of issues here. We're certainly not going to pretend we're experts, but one thing that comes to my mind is that in some of the other situations where you have negotiations, there is an economic barrier to creating a long, drawn-out process on one or the other party. That relates back even to the comments Mr. Smillie and Mr. Haydu made, in which you are talking about different segments of the system not being unionized, such as the grain service workers who are in our terminals.

But there's an economic clout on both sides to resolve that dispute, whereas when a third party such as we have between the terminal and the vessels doesn't necessarily have the same economic impact placed upon them, then perhaps that will be significant enough to them that they will attempt to resolve their problems, knowing they can't play a card that has such leverage as they've been able to play. Although I don't know, I really would hope that the sense that they are in fact responsible or going to have to be responsible will be an initiative for them to work at a proper and true collective bargaining process.

• 2015

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mr. Smillie, and thank you for your presentation, gentlemen. As a sort of newcomer to this whole field of the port of Vancouver and its labour relations, I have to say that the clarity of the words in your presentation has explained to me the vehemence with which so many of the other presenters have spoken. The clarity with which you explain how grain has been used as a card to make certain things happen is, in itself, of great value to the members of the committee. Thank you very much for coming.

Mr. Gordon Smillie: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Can I ask Mr. Paul and Mr. Douglas to come forward to the table?

It's my pleasure to welcome the representatives of the North Slave Métis Alliance, Mr. Clem Paul and Mr. Shalto Douglas. Mr. Paul is the president of the alliance and Mr. Douglas is the vice-present.

I would invite you to begin, Mr. Paul.

Mr. Clem Paul (President, North Slave Métis Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. First of all, before I begin, I'd like to state that I'm very grateful to have this opportunity to voice and address some of my concerns in regard to amendments to Bill C-19.

I'd like to begin by basically reading my presentation and by stating that I am the president of the North Slave Métis Alliance. I was born and raised in the Northwest Territories. I grew up in Yellowknife, a mining town. My parents moved there from the community of Fort Rae in 1938.

The Métis people in the Northwest Territories have only recently come into regular contact with the industrialized workplace. The Métis people have a long history of being self-reliant on the land and in the more diverse lifestyles that they have developed in their contacts with industrialized society. The Métis have cherished a belief that each individual finds his or her place through personal resourcefulness and the ability to contribute. Sharing of the bounty of everyone's effort so that no one goes in need is part of our belief.

The arrival of mining development brought economic opportunities to our lifestyle, which until then was largely geared to the land. Recently, significant shifts in the wage economy have come about because of the prospects of diamond mining in the Northwest Territories.

The Métis people and certain other aboriginal groups have a unique opportunity to improve their situation through participation in these new developments. There are employment opportunities for our people to enter the workplace as unskilled workers and to learn trades that will provide lasting benefit. More than that, many of our people will enter the workplace for the first time from traditional communities. The mining companies will offer special social programs and counselling benefits that will make it possible for our people to move successfully from traditional lifestyles into modern workplaces.

• 2020

Our situation is unique. Our outlook on labour laws and practices in the workplace is conditioned by our traditional work habits and our viewpoint of how we as a people can benefit from the current economics of Canadian society.

This is our approach to unions. The Métis people must have the opportunity for participation, for particular attention to their needs, in the industrialized workplace if they are to overcome past disadvantages. The Charter of Rights guarantees this opportunity to aboriginal peoples. If the needs of the Métis become submerged in any way in the union movement, our people may be denied opportunities to better themselves.

The Métis do not wish to deny the benefits of collective actions to other workers who want their jobs and working conditions protected by the union movement. The Métis only want the freedom to pursue their unique interests without restrictions by rules applying to others, rules that are not responsive to the needs of the Métis. We may be a minority group in terms of numbers in the workplace, and it will take many years for us to reach the same education levels that non-aboriginal workers possess. These are significant factors in the focus we will bring to our dealings with the corporations who employ us.

Our specific recommendations are as follows.

First, the Métis do not want unionism forced on them because of the collective wishes of other groups in the workplace. The Métis want to be free to join a union or not, according to the wishes of the individual. The choice of whether a membership in a union benefits the worker should be a decision each person is free to make for themselves. Restrictions on our freedom to benefit from opportunities becoming available for the first time will harm us in becoming full partners with other groups in Canadian society.

Second, we do not want to see a minority of employees in a workplace having the right to bring in a union that will represent all the workers. For the first time, the Métis have an opportunity to become a substantial part of the workplace in new industries in the north. The potential for the development of beneficial relationships between the employer and the Métis can be jeopardized if the workplace becomes unionized through the efforts of a minority of workers. Our well-being could be at risk if collective bargaining has a negative impact on employer policies designated for the benefit of aboriginal peoples.

Third, we object to any rules that will require an employer to give a union the addresses of employees. We foresee union certification drives by southern unions that might lead to the Métis being pursued at their homes or otherwise to support a certification drive. Those of us who opt to join a union will be free to give any information we want to the organization, but others who do not should not be subjected to the unwanted invasion of their privacy.

Fourth, we object to any voting procedure other than secret ballot. The individual should be free to make choices without the fear of intimidation by others.

Fifth, the Métis do not want any hard and fast rules against replacement workers preventing them from taking advantage of employment opportunities. In the northern economy, weather plays a critical role in the success of operations. A work stoppage could cripple an enterprise, doing harm to the business and doing harm to the interests of the business and the workers alike. The Métis who live in the Northwest Territories would have no other ready means to support themselves if they were prevented from continuing with their jobs during a labour dispute. We would want the freedom to go to work while the members of the union are on strike. Laws preventing us from doing so would be harmful to our well-being. We do not see ourselves as a threat to other workers if we take advantage of jobs when they are available.

In conclusion, the Métis see possibilities for economic well-being and the improvement of themselves as a group coming from the recent developments in the diamond industry and the continuing operations of other mines that have been in the Northwest Territories for some time.

• 2025

The operations are frequently of a fly-in nature and are served by vital links of winter road communications at certain times of the year. The circumstances surrounding these enterprises are that they operate in remote areas and interact with the traditional lands the Métis and other aboriginals have used from time immemorial.

The Métis want to keep their freedom to enjoy the traditional pursuits of the land while at the same time taking full advantage of preferential treatment available to them under the laws of Canada. The Métis people believe their right to achieve economic freedom, enjoyed by other groups in Canadian society, should not be hindered or delayed by labour relation practices that could unduly restrict their freedom.

With that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to present you with my brief presentation.

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

We'll begin the questioning by Mr. Johnston, please, or Mr. Anders.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for a very concise presentation. As a matter of fact, it was so concise I'm not even going to ask any questions. However, I think my colleague has a comment or two.

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

Mr. Rob Anders: I thought it was interesting when you said, for example, that native rights should not be constrained by labour relations as they currently exist in the country. Right now, some people enjoy religious exemptions from taking part in trade unions, from being members, or from paying dues against their will. I'm wondering whether or not that is something, in a sense, you're seeking with this, speaking to the issue of native rights in a similar fashion to the idea of a religious exemption, and that you be allowed to exercise your freedom and your minority rights to not be forced into union certification against your will.

Am I right to understand it in that respect?

Mr. Clem Paul: We don't see it as an aboriginal right or anything. We see it as our right as individuals, in the north and in the workplace, to be free to make those choices.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. Therefore, you wouldn't see this just as something that pertains to yourselves as Métis, but something that extends to all workers and individuals, rather than just those who are part of a collective. You believe they are all individual people who make choices for and of themselves, and they should have the ability to choose voluntarily whether or not they want to be members of the trade unions or not, and not be forced into it by a collective decision against their individual wills.

Mr. Clem Paul: We see that as quite possible.

Mr. Rob Anders: Good stuff.

I take it this is a philosophical concept for you but also something that's closely ingrained and entrenched in your ability to provide jobs for the Métis in your area and closely tied to the economic concerns beyond just any philosophical consideration as well. Is that right?

Mr. Clem Paul: Well, it is to a certain degree. I can speak for the Métis in the North Slave region. There have been a number of mines in the Northwest Territories over the years. My parents moved to Yellowknife in 1938 to participate in part of the mining industry that was beginning at that time. I can tell you the only jobs most of the aboriginal peoples got at the mines at that time were unloading boats and things like that.

Now, with a new relationship amongst non-aboriginal peoples and aboriginal peoples, and the new movement between industry and aboriginal peoples while using traditional lands...a new relationship has begun in the north where employers are welcoming Métis people and other aboriginals into the workforce and giving them preferential treatment at jobs, business opportunities, and training. They're encouraging our people to continue with education. We don't want this very first opportunity to better ourselves to be hindered or stifled in any way.

Mr. Rob Anders: I also note you talked about allowing replacement workers. I take it that is because you recognize that while some of the people in your alliance, for example, may be working on a site right now, if they were to become unionized or certified others would probably be in your alliance as well who may want to put food on the tables for their families or work as replacement workers, and they should have the ability to garner those jobs the same as anybody else.

Is that a fair comment?

• 2030

Mr. Clem Paul: That's a fair comment.

Mr. Rob Anders: Wow. Refreshing.

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

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I have to tell you that I feel a sort of cultural shock. We are not used to hearing this kind of position. The introduction of unions in the history of mankind was a consequence of the working conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the industrial era. People protested against their working conditions. We're talking about slavery. We're talking about children working and dying in the mines, particularly in Great Britain. That, in the history of mankind, is what triggered the movement of people getting together to negociate working conditions, salaries, and so on.

Do I understand that you would be prepared to work under different conditions than those that have been negociated elsewhere by unions? What is your position? Let's talk about replacement workers. As Metis, you have jobs in the mines. Suppose there is a conflict because the working conditions are unhealthy and the employer goes elsewhere in Canada and hire workers to replace your Metis People. Would you accept that as a normal occurrence?

[English]

Mr. Clem Paul: I guess I can begin by enlightening you about workplace conditions in the north. They are equal, or superior, to probably anyplace else in the country. I'm not sitting here as a slave or a former slave, or as someone who was deprived in any way in the workplace. I see unionized workplaces, such as some of the mines right in the city of Yellowknife—Giant, Miramar Con—where workers are paid substantially more than the people in town. In my opinion, they're not deprived in any way.

Sure, some of the jobs aren't as healthy as some of the other jobs, but that's mining. If they want a healthier condition, maybe they should take up baking and work in a kitchen. I don't know.

As far as we're concerned and as far as we see the situation, the workplace is as safe as anyone could possibly want it. The wages are higher, and the miners are living much more comfortable lives than the Métis are, I can assure you of that. We'd gladly have any of those jobs if they were ever available to us.

What I am trying to say here, and my statement on replacement workers, is that if those jobs were available, we would consider taking them if we were offered them in a situation where a mine was out of town.

In Yellowknife, it was a little bit of a different story when Giant went on strike. People were walking around with clubs and bats, beating individuals on the streets, smashing windows, and blowing people up and killing them for jobs. That's a little bit too much for us. It was very difficult for us to fathom why someone would go to that extreme, to kill someone else for a job. It doesn't make sense to us.

So in those conditions, in those kinds of workplaces, we'd sooner stay out of it, but where we're presented with an opportunity where a brand-new mine site is established and working conditions are fair—and in most cases, at least, they would be above average—we would like those jobs. We would like to keep them, and secure them for a lifetime. I'd like to have the opportunity to pass it on to my son, like anybody else down south or any other unionized person would.

• 2035

In my view, the point I raised on replacement workers is that if it were the case, the Métis would gladly take over those jobs.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Do you agree that the good working conditions that exist in some workplaces are not due purely to chance or to the Holy Spirit, but are the result of a struggle led by people against other people, by people who were in a precarious situation and who, by the sheer number, have established a balance of power enabling them to negociate and gain acceptable working conditions? It does not happen just like that, because, in the absence of any intervention, one could imagine that mines in the Canadian North would be managed as were the mines in Great Britain 200 or 300 years ago. We should not have any illusion about that. So, what is your place in the context of the history of mankind?

[English]

Mr. Clem Paul: I respect the work of people in history—of course I do—and I thank them very much for all their hard work. But the fact of the matter is that when you work, you get paid. That is part of our basic philosophy: we work, we get paid. Those people worked for those conditions and they got paid for it. Do we continue to owe a union? Was it a union that was responsible for those conditions or was it the individual? That's the way we see certain things.

Maybe I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Merci.

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

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: I'm a little bit troubled by what is said in the first section of your brief, “Our Approach to Unions”. You go to great lengths to talk about the Métis as a collective group “who do not wish to deny the benefits of collective action to other workers”. Métis are a specific unit. But then in the second section, number 2, you go to great lengths to talk about individuals. It's difficult to understand the rationale in your presentation, if I can, because there's a very big difference.

Let me give you an example and then ask you whether you would approve of this. In northern Ontario, of course, there's a large aboriginal population. A new mine was opened there by Placer Dome. Placer Dome got an individual of prominence to arbitrate a collective agreement, which the Steelworkers of America agreed with, that would allow aboriginal people to have a large percentage of the workforce. In that case, you got the best of both worlds. You got the ability to have the representation of a union and at the same time a guarantee that aboriginal people would be properly represented in the workforce because of the amount of aboriginal people who are in the area.

My question is based on the fact that aboriginal people, Métis people, tend to be part of a collective. Would you be in favour of or willing to look at an arrangement like that, which guarantees the Métis people of the Northwest Territories their fair share of the employment without having to rely on the bosses and the owners of these particular mines to look favourably on Métis people or others? In fact then you could get an iron-clad agreement in a collective agreement process.

Mr. Clem Paul: First of all, I'd like to address your opening comment about how my paper began and about how we are recognized as a collective. I began in the very first couple of sentences saying that we cherish our “belief that each finds his or her place through their own resourcefulness and ability to contribute”.

• 2040

We believe in that. We believe in our individualism, and we also believe that we must operate for the good of others. It's a custom, I suppose, that's been passed on from generation to generation. We have no written history. That's what I believe and that's the way our people live today—not all of them, of course, but most of them.

In regard to your statement about how we would see ourselves benefiting from a situation as you describe, if the situation, as I understood from your description, was that the Métis were guaranteed a certain amount of jobs.... It's very unlikely we will be guaranteed any jobs, because it will be very difficult for anybody to guarantee anybody anything in this day and age. We would definitely, I'm sure, insist on preferential treatment in terms of jobs and preferential hiring. Most of our people are at a lower scale on the social ladder as far as education, job awareness, training, and everything else goes. Most of our people are relatively unskilled. So any opportunity that would give them an ability to participate in a more meaningful fashion in society, other than working on seasonal jobs somewhere else, most definitely we would pursue.

Mr. Robert Nault: I have a final question, Madam Chair.

I'm not aware of this—and I apologize for my ignorance about this particular organization you belong to, the alliance—but could you tell me, of the number of people in the alliance, how many people are now presently employed by the mines in the Northwest Territories, as a percentage, so we can get a better sense of...? Based on your arguments made to the committee, you're suggesting basically the status quo in the Northwest Territories now. That means to me at least—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—that you're satisfied with the status quo, because you're basically arguing the status quo now. This must mean you're doing fairly well in the Northwest Territories as it relates to the Métis people getting jobs in the mining industry.

Mr. Clem Paul: I can't really understand your conclusion on why we might be satisfied with the situation. I believe that probably, at the most, 1% of our people are working in the mining industry right now.

As far as agreeing with the status quo, my presentation has nothing to do with that. My presentation says the status quo is not good enough, and in large part the basis of that conclusion is because of unionized situations. If it wasn't unionized, I think we'd have close to 10% or 15% of people employed in the mining industry. Right now we don't. So as far as agreeing with the status quo, I don't know how you concluded that from my statement.

Mr. Robert Nault: It's because in your presentation the three issues you're opposed to are the three changes we are now putting in the bill that don't exist in the law now. In fact, you're arguing against the new changes, not the whole issue of unionism per se. So that's new. You've basically said now that you're totally opposed to unionism. As I said, I wanted to know your organization's make-up because I come from a very large aboriginal population in northern Ontario and I've never heard someone make a presentation like this to me before. So I'm quite surprised, and I'm trying to get a sense of what, as a Métis person, is your rationale for making these kinds of statements that unionism is anti-Métis almost.

Mr. Clem Paul: It isn't anti-Métis, but I do believe in my paper it discusses some of the changes I'm against. Sure, some of them are new—yes, they are—but we believe some of the legislation...there's enough there already There's enough there that has hindered our people. It has been more of a hindrance to us than a benefit. Why make it worse? I'm saying don't make it any worse than it already is.

• 2045

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

Mr. Martin, we're going to start. You need about an hour, I know.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'll be brief.

It seems that your presentation has a remarkable resemblance to Mr. Willy's, really. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were shilling for the corporations here. I've worked in mines in the Yukon, underground and open-pit. There's a very large representation of aboriginal people there. I couldn't put a figure on it. Both of them were unionized.

The union is not a barrier to employment equity situations. I can't imagine where you come from that point of view, unless you're meeting a certain corporate sector and it's a very compelling argument for you. But the unions are the only friend a working person has, and especially in employment equity situations where you're trying to get some social justice. That's why unions were created. That's what we do. If you're accurately representing the views of the North Slave Métis Alliance, and I have every confidence you are...yet that certainly isn't a national position.

At least where I come from, the Manitoba Métis Federation works very closely with the Manitoba Federation of Labour on all kinds of social justice issues, and as far as employment equity goes in terms of hiring, when we build a hydro dam, the hiring goes like this: northern aboriginal people get first dibs on the job. If they can't fill it, then other northerners get second dibs on the job. If they can't fill it, southerners get an opportunity to bid. Those are in union jobs, and it doesn't matter if the northern aboriginal person is a member of the union or not. After they start their job, though, they'll join the union.

So really, I'm sorry you've had such a hard time or the experience in your immediate area was so negative, but I can't accept that it's a national pattern, and it's certainly not the position of, I don't think, the AFN or the Métis federation nationally.

The Westray mine was a non-union mine, a nice, brand-new mine too. If there was an active union workplace safety and health committee, those 26 miners wouldn't be dead.

You object to the world “shill”. Well, that's too bad.

Anyway, I won't go on and on. It's very disappointing.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Chair, I think it's really insulting that we'd have a member of this committee...and I apologize on behalf of people who don't seem to have manners enough to know that it's insulting to call someone a shill for someone else.

Mr. Pat Martin: No; “shilling” is a verb that means you're advocating somebody else's position for them.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): It's a legitimate English word, I believe.

I wonder if I could have the committee's indulgence to ask a couple of questions myself. I know it's late.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Keep them concise!

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): You can all ring the bell when I go over.

There are some absolutely amazing statements in your brief. The statement that really amazes me is this one:

Our well-being could be at risk if collective bargaining had a negative impact on employer policies designated for the benefit of aboriginal people.

I've heard of union policies designated for the benefit of aboriginal people, I've heard of employer policies designated for the benefit of the pocketbook of the employer, and I've heard of employer policies designated for a variety of other things, but can you give me an example of an employer that has a policy, as an employer—not as a union shop but as an employer—designated for the benefit of aboriginal people? I've never heard of such an outfit.

Mr. Clem Paul: What I was referring to there is that if a Métis were to reach an agreement with the mine prior to their development—it's similar to other impact and benefit agreements that are negotiated and implemented from time to time with mines—if we are to reach an agreement in the development of a mine that might ensure us preferential treatment, we would like that to hold fast.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): But you're saying “if”. You can't tell me an employer that has those policies—is that what you're saying? But you're saying you're hoping that situation might occur in future.

• 2050

Mr. Clem Paul: We are in the midst of negotiating an impact and benefit agreement with one of the diamond mining companies at the present time, and I anticipate beginning to negotiate an impact and benefit agreement with another mining company. There have been two other aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories that have negotiated and are in the midst of implementing impact and benefit agreements that are ensuring preferential treatment toward their people, and they have benefited their people enormously.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Is that outside of the union?

Mr. Clem Paul: Outside the union.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): And have the wages been the same as the union wages, or are they less?

Mr. Clem Paul: I wouldn't be giving you a fair.... I don't think I could answer that because I haven't made a comparison, really, to tell you the truth.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Well, it would seem to me that before negotiating such an arrangement for your people, you might want to find out all the implications from the people who have already done it. I find this statement absolutely amazing, even though I now understand that it's a hypothetical situation that you're hoping to achieve.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you both for coming. Your presentation certainly kept us awake. Thank you very much.

Mr. Clem Paul: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): I want to remind the members of the committee that tomorrow at 9 a.m, we meet in the centre block in room 237-C.

This meeting is now adjourned.