[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 23, 1996
.1539 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
While the witnesses are getting set up, Mr. Comuzzi, you wanted to raise a point?
Mr. Comuzzi (Thunder Bay - Nipigon): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you will recall, about four or five months ago the transport committee did a complete review of marine policy in Canada and made several recommendations to Minister Young. These resulted in a marine policy review, which I think we'll be touching on at the end of this session.
.1540
Part of this marine policy review had to do with user fees charged to all shipping users on the east coast, on the west coast, and on the Great Lakes. As we talked of user fees, there was no real opposition to the user fees other than the fact that on the transport committee we wanted to establish certain criteria that should be implemented prior to user fees being applied.
To summarize for a minute, part of the recommendations had to do with the minimization of costs. There is a serious obligation on those that charge for services to minimize the costs for which they are charging. This was a key element in the Standing Committee on Transport report.
Second, in addition to reducing costs, any ferry user fee system requires that users should be asked to pay only for those services that they require, and not for services that are arbitrarily imposed by the coast guard. A good example of that is the aids to navigation, which cost us about $275 million a year. There is enough evidence to prove that this aid to navigation can be performed at a great deal less money.
Third, the services that are provided should be provided at competitive rates, not at the rates that the coast guard is going to charge under its present cost structure.
Those are just three of the main points that were recommended to the Minister of Transport and were accepted. The coast guard is now under the jurisdiction of Fisheries and Oceans. They conducted the same hearing into user fees just recently and made a recommendation to their minister in complete contradiction - and I emphasize that it was in complete contradiction - to the recommendations made by this committee under a very in-depth study on marine transportation. As a result of that, user fees on the east coast, on the west coast, and on the Great Lakes are going to start to be implemented on June 1 of this year.
So I bring this to the attention of the committee. I know we can't do anything about it at this particular moment, Mr. Chairman, but this requires the very serious and immediate attention of this committee. We must decide what we are going to do about this unfortunate decision made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Comuzzi. Perhaps you and I could meet on this after committee today and come back to the steering committee with a recommendation as to how we proceed as a committee, if at all.
Mr. Comuzzi: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we should get a consensus that we have the committee's permission to....
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): I just heard about it today and I'm very upset about it. It's quite contrary to what I thought Fisheries was doing.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): Ditto.
The Chairman: Then perhaps we should speak to the chair of the fisheries committee and with the department and come back with some thoughts on how we might proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Comuzzi.
Welcome. Our previous witness did not appear, so we're going to start a little bit early. Because of the large number of organizations with which you are involved and which you represent, we've given you an hour rather than our usual half hour. I would ask that you try to keep your remarks precise, shall we say, so that we can leave some time for the questioning that I know will follow.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Desfonds (President, Union of Canadian Transport Employees, and President, NAV CANADA Bargaining Agents Association): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present this brief on behalf of the NAV CANADA bargaining agents.
I would like to introduce the gentlemen who are with me. They are Mr. Ron Richardson, Chairman, Aircraft Operations Group Association; Mr. Ron Smith, President, Air Traffic Specialists Association of Canada; Mr. Dave Lewis, President, Canadian Air Traffic Control Association; Mr. Paul Morse, Business Manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2228, who has not arrived yet; and Mr. Dave Primeau, pension and benefits specialist, Professional Institute of the public service of Canada. My name is Robert Desfonds and I am the President of the Union of Canadian Transport Employees and of the Bargaining Agents Association.
.1545
One of our members is absent, unfortunately. That is Mr. Merdon Hosking, who is President of the Association of Public Service Financial Administrators.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we applaud the government on the consultation process and support its decision to commercialize the air navigation system (ANS) and would like to speak in favour of Bill C-20. We believe that Bill C-20 presents a fresh and creative model of a collaborative approach among owners, managers, operators and employee representatives which can set an example for many other endeavours in the way ahead for economic development in Canada into the next century. Never before have so many groups with such diverse backgrounds come together to agree on a common goal.
This is a made in Canada solution, to serve Canada's needs, which has the potential to bring NAV CANADA to the forefront of all air navigation systems in the world by creating a model of commitment and leadership in the public interest.
The Air Transport Association of Canada, the Canadian Business Aircraft Association, the Canadian Airline Pilots Association along with the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association have for a number of years promoted the commercialization of ANS.
Similar recommendations have been made by a royal commission, a ministerial task force and an independent study.
A commercialized ANS is expected to be more responsive to the needs of the users of the system and have the ability to implement new technology in a timely manner.
I would like to present a brief history of how we got to where we are today, then highlight some positive points of Bill C-20 and some concerns we have with Bill C-20 after which we will be available for questions.
In 1994, in conjunction with the federal budget speech, the government asked Transport Canada to study options for the commercialization of ANS. Consultation was held with all concerned stakeholders and an advisory committee was formed comprised of the aviation stakeholders, government officials and bargaining agents. Additionally, public consultation meetings were convened across Canada.
At the conclusion of its study, the advisory committee reached a strong consensus on the not for profit corporation model.
In February 1995, the budget speech contained approval of the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, the honourable Doug Young, which supported the recommendation of the advisory committee to sell the ANS to a ``not for profit'' private corporation to be operated as a public utility.
In May 1995, NAV CANADA was incorporated and negotiations for the sale and transfer of the ANS started in earnest.
A tripartite agreement addressing employee issues for the transition to NAV CANADA was reached among NAV CANADA, the government of Canada and the bargaining agents.
An agreement in principle for the sale of the ANS for $1.5 billion was completed on December 8, 1995.
The transfer agreement was signed on April 1, 1996, which now brings us to the legislative process.
I would now like to leave the floor to my colleague, Mr. Lewis, who will continue our presentation.
[English]
Mr. Dave Lewis (NAV CANADA Bargaining Agents Association): The bill addresses many of the concerns brought forward by the interested parties. In particular, safety legislation and regulation properly remain with the government through amendments to the Aeronautics Act allowing the minister to remain as regulator of the industry. Concerns about maintenance of safety and service levels are addressed through a mechanism that mandates public involvement. Changes to fees or services may be implemented subject to consultation and review. The safety and security of the public is assured by granting certain powers to the Minister of Labour in the event of labour disputes and by requiring minimum service levels during industrial action.
.1550
We are satisfied that the bill contains guarantees for the continuation of the use of both official languages in all aspects of NAV CANADA's operations. NAV CANADA will retain the exclusive right to provide ANS services in Canada, thereby ensuring a standardized and safe system for the public. This is the only way to ensure that Canada continues to have a thriving and safe air navigation system that will continue to be the best in the world.
We believe this corporation will be more responsive to technological change by being free of the cumbersome and slow procurement process that the ANS had to contend with. Our members are optimistic about the transition to a commercialized ANS.
There does remain, however, a key area that needs to be finalized prior to the transition date. We are concerned about how the Public Service Superannuation Act will recognize service with NAV CANADA in calculating pension benefits for those who leave their service in the PSSA. Bill C-20 is silent on the pension issue. We have been assured that the matter of recognition of NAV CANADA service will be accomplished through regulations made pursuant to the PSSA. The affected bargaining agents and the public service superannuation advisory committee must be consulted on the relevant regulation as it is developed for Governor in Council approval.
Finally, it is considered important that this process be completed before our members consider whether or not they should transfer their pension credits to NAV CANADA or leave them in the PSSA. There has been full and open consultation from the very beginning of this project. This has created a climate of trust, which has led to the promotion of creative solutions to the benefit of all parties. We are hopeful that this process of consultation will continue to foster the cultural change that has already begun in order that labour relations within NAV CANADA can reach their full potential. There is a lesson here for the government to examine this model and to use it in future devolutions.
On behalf of the bargaining agents and their respective members, we look forward to the opportunity to bargain on the basis of worth and on the full range of employment issues, including those on which we are now prevented from bargaining under public service legislation. We believe NAV CANADA will be good for Canada, for the public, the taxpayers, the aviation users, and for the government.
We would like to respond to any questions that the committee may have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Desfonds.
Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Desfonds, Mr. Lewis, I thank for having expressed your satisfaction regarding the process that prevailed during consultations and also for having expressed your confidence in NAV CANADA's capacity to fully acquit itself of its mission.
However, I do note in your brief a concern about the calculation of pension benefits. Since this is not a question I have an in-depth knowledge of, could your explain your perspective to the committee about the choice an employee might have to make between moving to the NAV CANADA pension scheme or remaining with the scheme governed by the Public Service Superannuation Act?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Would you like me to respond to that?
Mr. Desfonds: I will ask my colleague to respond. He's the specialist on that.
Mr. Lewis: In essence, what we're looking at is a situation in which employees are going to be leaving one organization in the public service and will be moving to another organization, NAV CANADA. Within pension plans, there are certain requirements that you meet a certain numbers of years of employable service or pensionable service in order to achieve the rights to certain benefits. The Public Service Superannuation Act is an illustration. If you have 30 years of service with the PSSA, you can retire at 55 years of age with no reduction in your pension.
We can use as an example an individual who is leaving the public service and is going to NAV CANADA at the age 40 after having had 20 years of service with the public service. If he is starting as a brand-new employee with a brand-new company, and if NAV CANADA had no relationship whatsoever with the public service, you can see that the public service pension, when eventually payable and if the service were left with the public service, would not be paid without reduction until that individual was 60 years old. But that's the act as it is currently written.
.1555
Equally, with NAV CANADA, you wouldn't normally obtain a pension from their pension plan until you had attained 60 years of age, because you only had twenty years of service with them at that point. To achieve or maintain a wholeness for people making the transfer - so that they stay whole, as it were - the intention is that service be recognized as continuous between the two entities, that when a person goes to NAV CANADA, he has the choice of leaving his service with the PSSA or of moving all of his service and pension credits over to NAV CANADA.
If he leaves his service with the PSSA, the intent is - as we are advised and assured - that when this former public servant leaves for NAV CANADA, the service with NAV CANADA will be recognized under the PSSA for purposes of reaching the threshold entitlements.
So if we use the illustration that I just went through, the person choosing to retire from NAV CANADA at age 55 will have 30 years of service - did I give him 30? I think I actually got him to 35 in that case. He will have 35 years of service for purposes of threshold entitlements under the PSSA. Hence, at age 55 he could retire with an unreduced pension from the public service and, equally, an unreduced pension from the NAV CANADA pension plan.
We have a chance to review a draft of the NAV CANADA pension plan, and it recognizes the PSSA service for purposes of that protection. However, that same protection is not embodied inBill C-20. Rather, it's going to be dealt with through regulatory processes that are found within the Public Service Superannuation Act, specifically subsection 40(1). That particular section gives Governor in Council - or possibly Treasury Board; I may be wrong on that - the right to make regulations to maintain this wholeness.
So you can see the dilemma we're in. These regulations have yet to be made. Furthermore, they are regulations, and my mandate to my members and my colleagues is of course to protect their pension interests. Personally, I would rather see the protection embodied in legislation than in regulation, and for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, part of the reason is that a lot of this decision-making with respect to protection may not happen until quite a few years into the future. It's fine to remember what the undertaking was tomorrow or the next day, but what about a person who moves at the age of 30 and isn't faced with this for another 28 years? Will we remember in 28 years that there was a regulation passed by GIC at some point back then? That's why I would like to see a fairly simple statement personally, and that's why we would prefer to see a statement to the effect that this kind of principle applies.
As my colleague Mr. Lewis has indicated, however, it isn't necessary. The process is there, it's legal, it's within the law. But that's why we do have that concern. We would like to see such an undertaking in place, at least, before our members are faced with the choice. At least we can then assure our members that, yes, there is this back-and-forth commitment from both parties to recognize service with the other party.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Will the funds that are managed be transferred to NAV CANADA's pension fund or will they remain separate? When the employee retires, will he receive two pension cheques, one for the period when he worked for Transport Canada and the other for the time he spent working for NAV CANADA? Do you think it would be preferable that there be a single pension fund? Can you give us your point of view?
[English]
Mr. Dave Primeau (NAV CANADA Bargaining Agents Association): The way the situation will resolve itself is this: it will be totally dependent on the choice of the member.
[Translation]
If the employee prefers to leave his money under the Public Service Superannuation Act, he will receive two cheques, one from the PSSA pension fund and the other from NAV CANADA directly. But if the employee decides to transfer all of his pension credits to the NAV CANADA pension scheme, he will of course receive only one cheque, from NAV CANADA.
[English]
The relationship with the Public Service Superannuation Act has been severed once the person makes that choice. I understand that the member would have six months to make that decision, which for many of our members is a very important decision.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Since this is an important decision, I wonder if you could list for us the criteria that each of your member should consider in making that choice.
.1600
[English]
Mr. Primeau: The criteria to make the choice, simplistically looking at it without consideration of external factors, are very simple: does the employee anticipate getting increases in salary over his NAV CANADA career that are greater than the inflation rate; or does he anticipate having increases in salary that are less than the inflation rate?
The public service pension, when vested, will grow at the rate of inflation if it's left with the public service. The pension credits with NAV CANADA will grow based on the salary that the person earns with NAV CAN. So whichever one grows faster will be the better choice. That of course is an uncertainty, so each member will have to decide for himself.
There are clearly other elements that also come into play. There is a certain financial risk about being in a private sector plan as opposed to being in the publicly funded plan, but equally - and I think you'll agree - there's a political risk with being in a public service plan as opposed to being in a private sector plan, where it may not exist.
The fundamental criteria, I think, are probably those three: expected pay raises, financial risk anticipated, and political risk anticipated. Personally, I think the latter two risks are relatively minor when compared to the first one.
Mr. Desfonds: Brother Dave Lewis wants to raise something on this issue, too.
Mr. Lewis: On that point, Mr. Chairman, throughout the consultative process it has been acknowledged that there would be regulatory changes to the PSSA in order to accomplish this transition. We are monitoring that process and have been assured that all of the changes will be in place.
Mr. de Savoye: Merci.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, with regard to the pension part, there are some questions that I asked when we got our briefing from Transport, but I didn't understand the complexities of it to the extent that you've brought forward. What I would be more than prepared to do is ask if you would be interested - any of you - in drafting a proposed amendment. As some of you are well aware, I am working on a rather substantive amendment in another area, and it's taking about 110% of my time right now. We certainly would be prepared to look at that, however, discuss it with the committee, and consider it for an amendment, because it is a very genuine concern.
Notwithstanding what the other speaker just said there, I have been talking with a number of people and their bargaining agents over the last few days. I suggested that perhaps some people are looking at the idea that they might want to leave it in a government pension as opposed to going with the private sector. The audience responded that the way things are going, they might feel safer in the private sector - and they did so quite unprompted, I might add.
Dave, you did the part of the presentation in which you brought up some of the things that have been brought forward by people: concerns with the safety legislation and regulations, the charging, the way the fees are brought up. We've had all kinds of witnesses come in here really concerned about these things as they stand right now. Each of them has an element of truth - although I don't really want to call it that - to it, an understanding. I can understand where they are coming from, but you seem to accept that this is a good piece of legislation with a few wrinkles to iron out. Would you say it would be a reasonable approach, then, to say these people are largely concerned because there is always a natural fear of changing to something different? Is that where you think a lot of these might come from?
Mr. Lewis: I apologize. I wasn't here for the other presentations, so I don't know exactly where they're coming from. We have, however, reviewed a number of other jurisdictions in which the fees have been implemented. There's certainly a reluctance to embrace change, particularly when you consider that in this area, the air navigation system has always been provided to Canadians and to international carriers free of charge in this jurisdiction.
Currently, as I understand it - and I could be corrected on this - en route overflight fees were instituted in November 1995 in Canada. Until that time, Canada and the United States where the only jurisdictions in the world that did not have user fees. It is an appropriate way for systems to run. It seems to operate quite well. There are different variations on the theme, though.
Mr. Gouk: I have another area of concern. This one is mine, but it seems to be growing with the other sectors as well. I've been dealing with it in terms of asking questions at committee and at my other work outside of the committee. It deals with a labour dispute settlement mechanism, which you're more aware of than I am.
Just for the sake of providing the information to everybody - and mine won't be deadly accurate; I'm just sort of paraphrasing - I have focused primarily on the air traffic control group, because we're very short of time and that's where my best knowledge lies. But I have been consulting with the other groups. Some of them I have talked to, and others I have scheduled meetings with for later this week. Air traffic control, I believe, got the right to strike somewhere in the range of 1967.
.1605
A voice: That's correct.
Mr. Gouk: In 1971 they had their first strike, which was pretty devastating. Even though it was 25 years ago, it was still very devastating at the time. It ended with back-to-work legislation and compulsory arbitration to settle that particular dispute.
The next one that came up was legislation that was passed in advance of any strike to ensure that the controllers would not be able to go out, and that one resulted in a legislated settlement.
During this time there was a level of designation - I think it was something in the range of 15% - of controllers who were required to go to work in the event of a strike and do emergency duties - declared emergencies, medivacs, and so on.
Subsequent to this second legislation there was further legislation passed that basically gave the government the right to determine the level of designation and the designated duties. Once that was passed they came out with a new designated list that designated 100% of the controllers and put as their designated duties everything they did - their emergency duties - which might have made them feel pretty important but pretty impotent as far as bargaining power went, and that's the way it's been ever since.
This legislation changes that. It changes all bargaining agent employees from public servants on the day of transfer to private sector employees subject to the Canada Labour Code.
I will make a blanket statement that you will either accept or reject, and that is that this country and many of the aviation users - not all, but certainly many of them - cannot survive a strike of magnitude in the aviation sector. We had a strike in the rail sector, which created severe economic harm on Canada, and this is incomparable to what we would have if we had a national shutdown of our aviation sector.
I would suggest that CATCA, for one, may have the right to strike under this. At the very most, they would get to use it only once. I don't see that it would ever happen twice, because something would be passed to prevent it.
What I would rather do is find something that is fair going into this. Just as you've said you want something in writing to ease the minds of all the employees and the bargaining agents affected by pension, it's only right that they should know going into this exactly how we will deal with it.
I say the same thing for dispute settlement mechanism, and the mechanism I'm looking at is final-offer selection arbitration, because, first of all, I don't think we can allow the aviation sector to shut down because of the effect on the Canadian economy and the effect on airlines. If one airline shuts down with an airline strike, that's bad in itself. It's senseless, as far as I'm concerned, but it does permit you to use one of the other airlines or a newer airline to come up in its place, and we deal with it that way. But I think to shut the entire aviation sector down is just unworkable.
If we come up with something now that is generally acceptable - I'm not asking for an open, warm embrace - in the workplace by all the users that are directly involved in this and have a stake in this - airport groups, air carriers, the airport authorities, and the bargaining agents that you represent - and if we can come up with an alternative to a strike that treats both sides equally and fairly and is carefully worded so that we deal with the various concerns of final-offer selection arbitration, would you be willing to consider this type of mechanism as opposed to the strike concept?
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Gouk, our position would be that we would not be in favour of a single-alternative dispute resolution mechanism. All of those same parties - the stakeholders to aviation that you mentioned - were a part of the advisory committee process. They all agreed to the transition to the Canada Labour Code and to the right to strike.
If you look around the world, particularly in Canada, academics who have studied the collective bargaining process have said that the right to strike levels the playing field. It makes people work together to reach solutions to problems. The goal in collective bargaining is not to go on strike. It's to get a solution. It's to get a solution that all the parties can live with. By invoking a dispute resolution mechanism like final-offer selection, you get away from the win-win scenario, and you actually create a win-lose scenario.
.1610
But I would offer that final-offer selection is available under the Canada Labour Code as an option if the parties agree. There are other alternate dispute resolution mechanisms also available in this same format.
My concern around final-offer selection is there are many variations on a theme. There are many permutations on final-offer selection and they can run the full gamut. The Sims commission, as you're all aware, is currently reviewing the Canada Labour Code. In fact, they've completed their review and they have issued their report. But the Canada Labour Code is under review by Parliament. I would suggest this would be the appropriate forum to seek alternate dispute resolution mechanisms instead of applying them in a singular area like this legislation, which could prove in the end to be contradictory to the Canada Labour Code.
I would also like to point out that under the code, and I will paraphrase it, a strike is defined as any concerted activity to restrict or limit work output. It does not necessarily include a work stoppage.
Mr. Gouk: I know we're talking of things like the infamous work to rule idea. But my point is that if there is a strike it will be dealt with by legislation simply because there is no alternative. The Vancouver port shutdown was dealt with by legislation. The national rail strike was dealt with by legislation. So we know this is going to happen. I think we can all accept this part of it is a given.
First of all, if or when this occurs, there will be some kind of mechanism put in its place. I think it would be senseless on the part of the government to legislate this time, then legislate in advance the next time and do something else the time after. There has to be a resolution.
I believe for the bargaining agents there are different options. There are all kinds of options, as you said. But there is none that I know of - I'm certainly willing to hear of them if there are - that is more fair, given that something will change and you will no longer be in the strike position. I don't know of anything more fair than final-offer selection arbitration.
So when we talk in terms of this bargaining group, if something like this needs to be brought in later, it is unreasonable to segregate a portion, albeit a substantial portion, of NAV CANADA. CATCA isn't the only group that has been under this sort of thing, where they've basically all been designated. There are others within your own group who are under the same sort of jurisdiction and who would be affected in much the same way. It would be unreasonable to affect only those, in the case of later legislation, and leave some small pockets of NAV CANADA's bargaining agents with the right to strike.
I reject the notion that those who are important should be penalized because of their importance, while those of lesser importance in the grand scheme of things should then be allowed to use the strike mandate if they are in a strong enough position to force a higher wage, or to be beaten down by an employer if they're in fact in a weak position. I think we have to get rid of this conflict type of settlement, which is what strikes are. I grant you very few try to go on strike. I suggest there are a few out there in the workplace who try to go on strike, but not in here.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I'll just wrap it up.
I would ask you to consider this as being what I think is the only viable alternative. If you have another alternative, I'd be more than happy hear it.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to close by saying that the final-offer selection was studied by the Sims commission and they rejected it wholeheartedly. They found some very large problems with it. The other thing is I don't know why you would want to limit yourself to any one mechanism when there may be others available. And the appropriate forum to seek those types of changes is through a review of the Canada Labour Code.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Mr. Jordan is next.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): I'm going back to your concern for your benefits. When you move from one employer to another, there's always that concern there. But is this the first time you've raised this concern to anyone here today?
Surely NAV CANADA has thought about under what conditions former employees of the government are going to become employees of NAV CANADA. There must have been some concern or discussion somewhere about that. If there hasn't been, I'm wondering why you've just left it until now before you have said we'd better ask some questions. Have you not asked any questions about this before to anyone? If you have, what was the answer?
.1615
[Translation]
Mr. Desfonds: Mr. Jordan, I can tell you that we have expressed the concerns of Transport Canada employees to the group that was responsible for the transition, and for preparing the transfer. When we saw some of the drafts of the act concerning the transfer, we realized that there was nothing in it about our pension fund.
You will understand that having worked, on the average, 20 or 25 years for the Public Service, we feel that we have built that pension fund and that we have a right to keep those benefits. We thus expressed our fears to Transport Canada, who replied that they were dealing with the issue, that we had nothing to be afraid of, that the terms and conditions of the system would not change, and that the pension scheme would simply be transferred without any changes.
This all sounds very well, but those are just words, and we would like something in writing. That is why we asked that the guarantee that has been promised us be put in writing, the guarantee that our pension fund would remain unchanged from what it is today.
We also expressed that concern to the persons responsible for the transition, at NAV CANADA. We were given to understand that they were seeking a solution to our problem.
[English]
Mr. Jordan: So what you're asking is that what you've been told orally be formalized. This seems like a pretty reasonable request. I don't know why you couldn't get this.
I think you have to understand that individuals would have to make some choices. We all do when we change employers throughout our lifetime. There are some advantages and some disadvantages. Sometimes you try to take all the advantages you had from your former employer and move it over to your new employer and this doesn't work. But you might find something in the new employer you didn't have with the old employer and compromise a little and decide to accept it.
But really I think you have to individualize those requests. If you have some fellow who has two years' experience, you don't have very much commitment to him. He's new on the job. So I think just to be reasonable, if I were in your position, I would just take my own personal situation and present it and ask what will happen to me now. I would do this because I don't think you can get them to say they're going to take all the services, all the people, all the commitments and transfer them.
Personally, if I were you, I'd be very careful of that. I'd get right down to the individual asking: What are you going to do with me? This is my history. This is my story. Do it that way, because if you're just going to take it in broad sweeping terms and if it is so loose, you may be surprised ten years from now how it would be interpreted.
[Translation]
Mr. Desfonds: Mr. Jordan, the choice of transferring pension fund credits is an individual choice, but, in a nutshell, we want a guarantee concerning our pension fund. The advisory committee after a long preparation process, did indeed launch the transition process with a tripartite agreement on the terms and conditions of the transfer. We were told that according to the Public Service Superannuation Act employees may choose to transfer, or not, all of the years of service they have with the Public Service to a new entity when that is possible.
I would like to take my own personal case as an example. I worked at the Montreal Airports, which were privatized, and we had the possibility of choosing to keep our pension fund under the Public Service Superannuation Act or to transfer it elsewhere. It is an individual choice, but we would simply like someone to tell us clearly about the choices we have and the terms and conditions that apply. We don't want employees to be simply told not to worry.
If Dave tells me today that there is no problem and agrees to give me what I am entitled to now, that is one thing, but what if he disappears tomorrow? Who will confirm that we had an agreement? That is just one example.
Allow me to repeat that one may respect someone's word, but it is always better to have a written guarantee. In that case, I would be sure that I could chose to transfer my pension credits, to keep them where they are or to use them in some other way, and that I could do so before anyone held a knife to my throat. I don't want to be forced to make a last minute decision.
[English]
Mr. Jordan: Don't wait until day one arrives.
I wonder if I could just have one more second, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking at page 2. Just help me here a bit. This language is new to me.
In the second last paragraph on page 2, you're talking about the public assurance the Minister of Labour will have certain powers, and then you say: ``and by requiring minimum service levels during industrial action''.
.1620
I've never heard this. What does ``industrial action'' mean? Is this another word for a strike?
Mr. Lewis: Yes, it is.
Mr. Jordan: Oh, okay. I never heard that one before.
Have you heard that one, Joe?
Mr. Comuzzi: No.
Mr. Jordan: Why not just say during a strike?
Mr. Lewis: We could, sir. We could amend it to read that way.
Mr. Jordan: Then we could understand it.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Jordan, if I could just go back to the last point, the problem here around the pension really centres on the fact that the regulatory change has not yet been promulgated. The superannuation people have assured us it will be done in the very near future. Once this is done, it will satisfy us. This alone will satisfy us. However, barring this, we are watching the process right now, and we will continue to monitor it very carefully.
Mr. Jordan: I agree you should, but I don't agree with ``industrial action'' when you really mean ``strike''.
Mr. Lewis: For the record, I would agree to a change, Mr. Jordan.
The Chairman: I will go for clarity of language.
Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
Do you have a further question?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I would like to mention two minor things. Firstly, Mr. Jordan, you know that French is a very precise language. In the French version, the word ``grève'', strike, is used.
Secondly, Mr. Gouk, I believe you asked Mr. Desfonds and Mr. Lewis if they could propose an amendment to the bill, an amendment that would express their concerns. If the Clerk is agreeable, a draft amendment could be given to him for the benefit of all the members of the committee.
Do you have any objection to that, Jim?
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Yes, that's the right way to go.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I will now let Jim have the floor because I know he has something to add.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Thank you.
Again, I'd just like to go back to the possibility of a dispute settlement mechanism. You're aware I've been having a variety of meetings, including meetings with some air traffic control groups.
I know what your position is. I know you would rather I was not doing it in the manner that I am. But there has been very short notice and I don't have time to do it any other way. So I have proceeded with these meetings with various groups. I had a meeting with your vice-president of labour relations, who I invited to attend any or all of these meetings, and I'm sure you're getting feedback in any case. I guarantee you - the indication should be that this is what I'm doing - it is not even soft sell. I'm not even trying to sell it. I'm discussing it. And the indications I'm getting thus far, in Montreal and Moncton, are that opinion is not unfavourable to this.
I have two additional meetings in Toronto and Vancouver. If I get the same tone there, on the basis of this would you consider reducing your resistance, shall we say - if we want to play with words like ``interruptions'' versus ``strikes'' - to this?
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Gouk, with all due respect, I am subject to the same political pressures you are, and I would have to consider it at that time. However, my position is very strong on this. The Canada Labour Code is the appropriate forum, and this is where it should be addressed.
Mr. Gouk: I would just like to make it clear that I don't disagree this is the ultimate objective. But to try to change an entire country's mechanism in one fell swoop.... We're into something where we could very seriously be looking at some form of a central service designation, shall we say, or the back-door way you've been dealt with for the last 15 or 20 years with this designation level.
Those are the kinds of settlements you get if you don't work together to come up with something more viable we can all agree on. If we don't go this way, then we're heading back that other way again.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Gouk, I believe if you have good faith at the bargaining table, and the parties are willing to seek solutions to problems, you will find them there. I believe the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism is to always have the availability to refer to a strike, be it a limitation of work output or a withdrawal of services.
I do not disagree with you at all in the fact that if there were to be a work stoppage, the government would in all likelihood intervene.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Comuzzi.
Mr. Comuzzi: Mr. Chairman, there is a question arising out of the last series of questions.
How many negotiated contracts are we going to have in this total air navigation corporation?
.1625
Mr. Lewis: How many separate collective agreements?
Currently, eight bargaining agents are affected. Some of the bargaining agents have separate bargaining units under their scope, so they have separate collective agreements within their group. I believe the range now runs to upwards of 15 collective agreements.
We've come to an agreement with NAV CANADA that those bargaining agents who have multiple bargaining units will amalgamate them into a single collective agreement. The result would be eight collective agreements.
Mr. Comuzzi: I've never heard of that term that Mr. Jordan used, although I did practise labour law.
Eight bargaining units - that should be looked at. Take a look at the history of railways.
I don't know how far this has gone, but would you be agreeable to something less than the eight bargaining units? Is there any way around that?
Mr. Lewis: There were discussions at the advisory committee on successor rights, and there was full agreement among all the stakeholders that there should be successor rights under the Canada Labour Code. This provides security and it also provides a level of comfort for the employees transitioning over.
You're aware, Mr. Comuzzi, that the Canada Labour Relations Board has the right to review the make-up of the bargaining agencies?
Mr. Comuzzi: I'm not talking about successor rights; I'm talking about protecting all of the workers in the transition. On that there's no question. This is much the same as how when we take an airport there is no question that we protect all of the workers in the airport transition.
It seems to me that to have eight separate negotiations going on, when we have an opportunity at the outset maybe to eliminate a lot of those.... It makes good sense. The whole essence of what we're trying to do in this government is to eliminate administration, and that's a tremendously expensive process.
Mr. Lewis: I would rely on the conversations that took place in the advisory committee, and the guarantees of continuation of the bargaining agent status were there.
Mr. Comuzzi: We'll talk about this again.
The Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen. Do you have any closing comments? No?
Thank you very much. We appreciate having had your time. We'll see what will happen in clause-by-clause consideration, which will begin not next week but the week after.
This meeting stands adjourned.