[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 27, 1996
.1533 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Today we have the pleasure of hearing fromMr. Donald Downing, the president of the Coal Association of Canada.
Mr. Downing, you will have approximately 10 to 15 minutes for your presentation. We appreciate that we have received your brief here. Then we will move to a question and answer session for approximately 45 minutes.
Welcome. You may begin.
Mr. Donald O. Downing (President, Coal Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Don Downing and I'm the president of the Coal Association of Canada. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the standing committee today on behalf of Canada's coal industry.
The Coal Association is the body that represents coal producers and exporters and many organizations that provide service to the industry from coast to coast. In total, the association membership includes 70 organizations representing all aspects of the industry.
.1535
Ladies and gentlemen, my presentation today will be brief. The purpose of my presentation is to address the proposed amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code, in particular amendments proposed for subsection 87.7(1) entitled ``Services to grain vessels''.
As a context for my comments on the proposed legislation, I would like to describe the key attributes of Canada's coal industry. In 1995 coal production reached approximately 73 million tonnes from 29 mines in 5 provinces. Total consumption was 52 million tonnes, mainly in the electricity-generating stations in 6 provinces - a total of 18% of Canada's electricity is generated at coal-fired stations - and in the steel industry in Ontario. Approximately 11 million tonnes of coal are imported in central and eastern Canada. Exports totalled 32 million tonnes in 1995.
Coal is a bulk commodity, highlighting the importance of transportation to the industry. Coal is the largest commodity by volume. In 1995 over 34 million tonnes were moved by the major railways. It is a major generator of revenue for the railways. There is a strong reciprocal dependence between coal and the transportation system. Each requires the other to be successful.
Exports in particular require efficient, cost-effective transportation because the international market for coal is extremely competitive. Exports from the west coast ports exceed 30 million tonnes annually. Asian countries are the primary markets for this coal, principally Japan, Korea and Taiwan, but Canada ships coal to over 20 countries. Our export industry was built up primarily to serve the Japanese steel industry beginning in the 1970s and it is a tribute to our industry's metallurgical coal marketers that they have adjusted their sights as the Japanese steel industry demand has changed and built market share in many other countries.
Canada's main competition in metallurgical coal is Australia, and in thermal coal it includes Australia, South Africa, Indonesia and Colombia. Each of these countries offers some natural advantage to its producers over Canadian producers, not the least of which is typically a much shorter rail distance to tide water. In the countries I mentioned, rail distance from mine to tide water would typically be 100 or 300 kilometres as opposed to 1,200 kilometres in western Canada.
In terms of economic impact, coal mining employs 7,000 people directly, among the highest-paid workers in Canada, with a net contribution to the economy of $1.5 billion. Just as importantly, coal mining creates a strong economic ripple effect or multiplier. A recent economic analysis by the Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority - and I have provided a summary of this analysis to the committee - shows a 3:1 multiplier in mine support industries, which translates to direct and indirect employment in the mining sector of 21,000. Coal transportation - rail and marine - results in another 31,000 direct and indirect jobs. Every coal mining job leads to more than 5 additional jobs in the mine support and transportation sectors throughout the economy.
The economic impact of coal mining and transportation taken together is $3.3 billion. When one includes employment in the electricity-generating stations, coal direct and indirect employment totals 73,000 and the economic impact is $5.8 billion or approximately 1% of the GDP.
It's the seaborne exports that create the interaction with the ports and marine service providers. These coal exports are valued at $2 billion annually, not insignificant by any measure.
My comments so far are intended to inform the committee of an important sector of the economy. We are a contributor to investment, growth, employment and trade earnings and a mainstay to the transportation sector. Coal is important to the country.
The amendments proposed for part I of the Canada Labour Code appear to reflect a view that grain is more important than coal. Indeed, one could be led to believe that grain is the most important commodity in the country. This is clearly not the case, and the proposed amendment, by attempting to make a special case for grain, diminishes the importance of the coal industry and all other commodity industries. Ironically, because this is labour legislation, it underscores the value of one worker over another - an individual working in grain is more important than one working in coal, or potash, sulphur, copper or petrochemicals.
My comments are obviously aimed at proposed subsection 87.7(1) entitled ``Services to grain vessels''. This amendment cannot be allowed to stand, as it discriminates between commodities and makes a special case for one. It suggests the Government of Canada places a priority and a special status on grain that would be impossible for us to explain to valued coal customers in over 20 countries.
.1540
I'm not an expert in labour matters and I don't pretend to be qualified to offer alternatives for resolving complex situations in port labour. However, I believe employer groups, expert in these matters, have tabled viable alternatives. None of the alternatives tabled include setting up one commodity over another in terms of national interest or economic impact. I submit, with respect, that any such discrimination between commodities should be removed from the amendments planned for part I of the Canada Labour Code.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to make these remarks.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Downing, for a very focused presentation.
We will move to Mr. Ménard from the Bloc, followed by Mr. Johnston.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Mr. Dowling, you'll always be just as unpredictable. I join our Chairman in welcoming you. I note that overall you see the bill in a rather positive light; this seldom makes the job harder for the opposition parties.
You have a few concerns about what you consider to be discriminatory treatment, with the mandatory advance notice and special treatment for the grain sector. You're our sixth witness, if my calculations are right, and other witnesses have also raised this question.
What's a bit hard for the legislator is knowing where to draw the line. What industrial sector or what commodity should be given priority in terms of handling?
I recall the parliamentary secretary also asking some witnesses this question. He said that, if the government thought it wise to grant somewhat special treatment to the grain sector, it wasn't just because of its importance to the western provinces, but also because it was linked to food.
What arguments do you think would militate in favour of such a treatment for the industrial sector you represent? Can you give us some really tough arguments that could be included in the final report that the Committee has to table and that would convince a minister who has already demonstrated his stubbornness in the past on some issues, but who all the same can be flexible when there is justification?
I hope I've retained an appropriate level of diplomacy. I know I'm the most stubborn member of the caucus. I'm listening.
[English]
Mr. Downing: Thanks for the question. I don't mind answering it. I think the mistake a government would make would be to try to discriminate between important commodities exported from the country. One is not any more important than another; they're all important. They all rely on the transportation system to do business, and the transportation system cannot be oriented to provide special services or status to one commodity over another.
All major export commodities rely on the port of Vancouver, for example. It doesn't matter which commodity is going through; we all need equal and equitable access to the same infrastructure. One cannot be given a special status over another.
A strike that has an impact on grain handlers and the grain transportation system has an identical effect on the coal industry, the coal transportation system, the producers, and the employers. If there are complex labour problems that affect grain handling and the loading of grain vessels, the resolution of those problems, I submit, should be developed in a way that treats all commodities the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Perhaps we'll have a chance to look into this further as more witnesses appear. But you realize that it makes the legislator's job extremely difficult if we put all commodities on the same footing, when it's not quite true in reality.
There may be something special about coal in terms of access to infrastructures that our Committee should find out about, but I think that the Committee couldn't make a recommendation to the government saying that all commodities in the Canadian economy are equally important.
Having said this, we'll have the opportunity to look into this matter further. Do you have anything to say to the Committee about the sort of relations you've had with the Canada Labour Relations Board, which will become the Canada Industrial Relations Board?
.1545
Do you have a point of view that the Committee might find it worthwhile knowing, since this is almost a court that may be giving decisions affecting your industrial sector? Have you examined the government's proposals concerning the Board's membership and the new powers it will have?
[English]
Mr. Downing: As the Coal Association, we haven't really given much attention to other aspects of the legislation. The employer groups and those who handle industrial relations have done so. Some of those are members of the association and have made their representations directly. I'm not in a position to comment on the points you just raised.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Ménard. Thank you. Wonderful.
Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Thank you, Mr. Downing, for your presentation. The work stoppages in the railroad certainly have a devastating effect on our economy. I guess some of it is measurable and some of it is not. You can certainly measure the loss of shipped product, for instance, or product that would have been shipped to market and wasn't, as a result of work stoppages in transportation, but I guess it's pretty nearly impossible to put a dollar figure on the loss of your reputation as a reliable supplier of commodity A or B. But bearing all that in mind, would you care to estimate what the March 1995 railway work stoppage may have cost the Canadian coal producers?
Mr. Downing: You're right that it's difficult to quantify the effect.
One of the bits of empirical evidence we have in the coal industry comes about from the situation that was created in 1992 when we had a significant corporate bankruptcy when Westar went bankrupt in western Canada. They were the leading exporter of coal at the time. In the year previous to 1992, our coal exports peaked at about 32 million tonnes. As an industry, we did not recover to that level until 1995.
So that would be an indication that work stoppages and those things that affect our customers in a competitive marketplace take a long time to correct. I would say that in our case it took five years to get five or six million tonnes of exports back, because our Australian and other country competitors took those. So I guess one could say that a work stoppage that lasts three or four weeks has an effect of a million tonnes or something like that, and that's a $50-million impact. If you lose a million tonnes of sales, it's going to take a year or more of hard work to get those back. The customers have somebody else to turn to.
Mr. Johnston: You did mention also, though, that you didn't really go through the bill in depth. But you will discover that there is nothing to define what is essential services here.
In areas where third parties such as coal producers, the Coal Association, would suffer from work stoppages, would you be in favour of final-offer selection arbitration as a tool for management and labour to avert the strike and come to agreement without having to have a work stoppage?
Mr. Downing: In that regard, we really look to the people who are active in the port situation as employers, and we are aware of the types of alternatives they've tabled. I think that would be among the list of acceptable alternatives that have been tabled by employers in the port. We're relying on their judgment, really, because they know the situation, and in that case we would say that among a suite of resolution tools, that would be an acceptable one. I think all the alternatives that have been tabled come with some conditions attached. It depends on the situation and so on. But we generally support our employers in the port and look at the options they have tabled as being viable and legitimate ones that could apply to all commodities in the port.
.1550
Mr. Johnston: Also, here there are provisions for the Industrial Relations Board to rule on whether replacement workers would be acceptable on a situation-by-situation basis or whether they would in fact be undermining the bargaining process or the union. I guess that would be something that would be assessed on a case-by-case basis by this new board. How do you see the use or non-use of replacement workers affecting your ability to ship your products and meet your contractual obligations?
Mr. Downing: I think throughout the mining industry you wouldn't find the producing organizations opposed to use of replacement workers if a valid case could be made for them on a case-by-case basis when circumstances demand that. Again, I'm not in a position to say categorically whether the Coal Association is in support of any particular option. I think that would be among a suite of alternatives that could be used, depending on the circumstances.
The Chairman: We have three questioners from the Liberals. We'll start with Mr. Proud.
Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Downing.
Your argument is that the coal and potash and other commodities should be treated the same as grain. This recommendation and subsequent legislation came as a result of consultations the people in the Sims task force had dealing with the negotiations on the west coast. So let me ask you this. You're a member of the unionized sector. In labour relations in recent years in your industry, the coal industry, have there been work stoppages relating to your industry specifically?
Mr. Downing: If there had been, I think the most serious of these would have been a lengthy strike within the last five years in the Elk Valley in southeast B.C., in 1992.
Mr. Proud: This was at the mine itself?
Mr. Downing: That's correct, yes.
Mr. Proud: How are these problems resolved within your industry?
Mr. Downing: Those are resolved through the normal collective bargaining process.
Mr. Proud: So you're saying all the coal and potash and all the others should have the same effect that's coming in this bill for grain. Most times when governments are called back or whatever to put through legislation to end problems, it's grain that's involved. One of the ideas was to take this out of there so the longshoring industry had to handle grain. What you're saying, I guess, is that you want that to be the law for all the commodities.
Mr. Downing: The situation at mines is somewhat different from at a port, where you have a monopoly of service providers. It's the same as a rail strike. One railway handles the production of many mines. A strike at one mine does not have the same industry-wide effect as a strike at the railway, for example, or a strike of port workers, because those tend to be the only outlets for most of the volume.
I think what we're saying is whatever the resolution to complex labour problems in a port is, it should be a solution for all the commodities.
Mr. Proud: So if your industry were shut down because of a strike by someone else, by the longshoremen or whatever the case may be, would this have as big an impact on the Canadian economy as a shutdown that would affect grain?
Mr. Downing: We would say yes. We're a big employer, with a big multiplier effect, and the customers rely on Canadian coal to a very large extent.
.1555
Mr. Proud: Has arbitration ever been used in your organization rather than the regular negotiated strike or lock-out type of thing? Have you used arbitration to settle disputes?
Mr. Downing: It may have been used. I wouldn't know. In many cases those things would have been held proprietary. Local labour disputes tend to be...each mine has its own local, so if there's a labour dispute, it tends to be a closely held type of affair.
Mr. Proud: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.
Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Thank you,Mr. Chair.
I appreciate your very informative presentation. I learned a lot and recalled a lot about coal. I do agree with you all commodities are equally important. Certainly, under all normal circumstances, each commodity deserves equal access to the rail and the shipping facilities.
But in the case of strikes or natural disasters, I'm sure that if either happened almost each of the twenty countries you ship to would probably recognize that we have to put grain in a different category from other commodities because it's food. I'm looking at some of the customers that you do have around the world, specifically in the Pacific Rim, and I'm glad to hear you say - before our presentation started - that looking at helping us get back to exporting from the east coast via water as soon as possible, more than we are now...but my comment comes with a soft spot for your coal and for other products.
I'm probably one of the few members of Parliament, if not the only one, with a prospector's licence. I recall this year seeing the largest regular-run trucks in Canada drawing zinc and copper from wherever in the Yukon down to Alaska to load onto the ships, and that's very important for our Canadian economy, and very important for the customers. We're an exporting nation. With good government, look what's happening. There's more money coming -
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. McCormick: Seriously! Everyone in the world says and recognizes, more than Canada does, that almost too much money is being directed to this country now, faster than our competence is letting us use it.
But I certainly would ask you this. Don't you think that at the end of the day we're going to have to agree that food is the reason? I see no other way around it. I think it deserves the priority that is offered by this bill.
Thank you. That's my statement - or my question.
Mr. Downing: I don't disagree with the importance of grain as a Canadian export or the importance of grain to the importing countries. I think there are others that are up there in importance as well.
Mr. McCormick: I'll pass it on to you now, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: I figured you would do that.
Mrs. Terrana.
Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): Good afternoon, Mr. Downing, and welcome.
It seems that these concerns have been brought forward mainly by the suppliers and by BCMEA. Is it just a question of principle because you feel that you've been left out, or is it really a genuine concern that it may cause some hardship to the whole industry?
Mr. Downing: It's my understanding from the terminal operators and the employers in the port that should they have a labour dispute and should grain continue to flow... They feel the situation would extend the labour dispute. It would take some of the political heat out of the situation, it would possibly lower the headlines, and the pressure to resolve a dispute would be lower, thereby extending the work stoppage on the other commodities.
Mrs. Terrana: Also, you are a large organization and an important one. As you know, it took a long time to review the labour code and it may be many years before we look at it again. When your association looked at the bill as it is presented now, were any other concerns raised about the content of the bill?
Mr. Downing: We have nothing to bring to the table in that regard from the Coal Association perspective. Again, in terms of the correspondence and representations made to us by our members active in the ports, they see many positive attributes to the changes being proposed, with this one exception.
Mrs. Terrana: They're going to be here next week, so...
Thank you very much.
.1600
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Terrana.
Are there any further questions?
We'll hear from Mr. Johnston, followed by Mr. McCormick, and then we'll wrap it up.
Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just from listening to Mr. Downing's concerns here, I wonder if he is under the impression that grain will continue to flow right from the farmers' bins, as it were, to the port, regardless of what the labour stoppages are. If that's your impression, that's not the case.
What I understand from this bill, Mr. Downing, is that if there is grain at the port, it will be loaded, but there is no provision to make sure that the grain continues to arrive at the port. If there is a work stoppage somewhere along the line, whether it's the CAW, the electricians or the maintenance-of-way workers - whoever it is - who are either locked out or on strike, that supply of grain to the port will dry up. However, the grain that is in the port will be loaded.
Mr. Downing: My assumption is that although there might be a labour dispute ongoing in the port, grain could continue to move through the rail system, be loaded on vessels and vessels could continue to move out of the port.
Mr. Johnston: Yes, that's true.
Mr. Downing: At least that's my understanding.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Downing.
Thank you, Mr. Johnston.
Mr. McCormick, very briefly, followed by Mr. Proud.
Mr. McCormick: I have a very brief question about the rail transportation and the ship loading facilities, which are most important to your coal and to our coal. Under normal circumstances, day to day, and throughout the year, does your commodity receive equal treatment or service with regard to grain and other commodities? I hope I know the answer, and I expect I do, but I would like to hear you comment on it.
Mr. Downing: Of course. I don't think we have any sense that there's a difference in treatment between the commodities.
Mr. McCormick: There shouldn't be. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Proud.
Mr. Proud: In your organization, most of your mines and most of your companies would be pretty well all under provincial jurisdiction, wouldn't they? You fellows would not be subject to the Canada Labour Code yourselves.
Mr. Downing: The mines operate under provincial jurisdiction. That's correct.
Mr. Proud: So where you would have the problem is when you get your product to the dock.
Mr. Downing: That's correct.
Mr. Proud: Do you belong to the employers' association there?
Mr. Downing: Members of the Coal Association do - the terminal operators in Vancouver.
Mr. Proud: But as such, none of your workers, the people who work for you, would be subject to this code.
Mr. Downing: I believe that would be the case.
Mr. Proud: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proud.
Mr. Downing, thank you very much for appearing before our committee. As you know, all the points you have raised are duly noted and we will be reviewing them in trying to improve this piece of legislation.
Mr. Downing: Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it.
The Chairman: We'll take a quick break and we'll come back when the next presenter is available.
.1605
.1617
The Chairman: I'd like to call the meeting back to order.
It's a pleasure to have representatives from the Air Transport Association of Canada, Mr. John Crichton and Mr. Howard Goldberg, president and vice-president respectively. You will have approximately 10 to 15 minutes to give us an overview of your brief, followed by approximately 45 minutes of questions and answers. Welcome. You may begin.
Mr. John W. Crichton (President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon. ATAC appreciates the opportunity to present its views with respect to certain portions of Bill C-66. We have filed a brief with the clerk, and I will not focus on that, but rather talk about two particular issues that are of concern to us.
ATAC, the Air Transport Association of Canada, represents all aspects of Canada's commercial aviation industry, and this includes the major jet operators, regional air carriers, as well as helicopter flight training and air taxi operators throughout Canada. Our members employ about 50,000 people and account for more than 95% of the annual $9 billion in commercial aviation revenues generated in Canada.
Our presentation will be short. You already have our brief. There is much in Bill C-66 that concerns air carriers of all sizes.
I know you heard from the Federally Regulated Employers in Transportation and Communications, or FETCO, last evening. ATAC is a member of FETCO, as are our largest airline members, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. We would urge you to give FETCO's concerns the most serious consideration.
As I mentioned, ATAC's concerns for the purpose of today's hearing focus on just two areas. That's proposed section 47.3 and the matter of replacement workers.
.1620
While it is true that most of Bill C-66 reflects consensus and the results of consultations held over more than two years, proposed section 47.3 came as a complete surprise. It was never the subject of consultation during the two years that led to the introduction of Bill C-66, and to my knowledge there was no discussion with any air carriers, large or small, regarding this particular provision.
Both the press release that accompanied the introduction of Bill C-66 and the speeches by the minister and others when the bill was given first reading made it clear that it is fundamentally focused on passenger security screening contractors who provide these services to air carriers at airports.
While it is true that the rates of pay and staff turnover rates for screening personnel were issues over the past ten years, ATAC has had an agreement with Transport Canada on this matter since 1988. Revised and updated in 1992, this agreement satisfies the security concerns of Transport Canada with respect to the recruitment retention and rates of pay of screening personnel. The agreement requires that when a new security screening contract is awarded, the new contractor must offer employment to at least 75% of the current employees and the wages paid must be at least the same as those earned under the previous contractor.
Even further, the agreement requires a salary structure that allows for wage increases and the opportunity to become a senior guard or a supervisor. All of this is happening without even the need for a collective agreement to be in place.
So for eight years we have had an agreement. We are in compliance, and indeed a year and a half ago a major security screening contractor providing screening services at a number of airports in Canada went out of business. ATAC member carriers undertook a year-long process to establish viable contracting firms to provide the important security services required by the regulations and by our customers and staff. During that entire period, no one's wages were reduced and, where contractors changed, no one lost his or her job. We view this as strictly an operational security issue and have dealt with it accordingly. Transport Canada is satisfied with the results.
The question then arises why there is suddenly a proposal for including screeners in the labour code. Quite frankly, we think if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Although we believe the intention of proposed section 47.3 was to cover security screeners and only security screeners, the result impacts on every contract an air carrier, airport or small commercial operator might enter into with providers of any types of services in the federal jurisdiction. Some examples - and these are examples only - include all kinds of aircraft maintenance services, including the painting of aircraft; engine maintenance, including overhaul and repair; ground handling services that are provided by third-party suppliers and other carriers extensively throughout the country; flight catering services of certain types; television commercials; long distance telephone services; data line services; radio commercials; freight forwarding - and the list goes on and on.
All of these services would be impacted by this proposed provision of the code. We urge you to look carefully at what this provision really says. It says if an airline, airport or small aircraft operator changes long distance providers from Bell Canada to Sprint, for instance, the air carrier must ensure that Sprint Canada pays those employees serving the contracting airline the same remuneration as Bell Canada did.
.1625
Sprint Canada has a huge number of customers, perhaps several airlines, some transferring from Bell, some from AT&T Canada, some from smaller resellers of long distance service. How could Sprint possibly comply? Indeed, how could air carriers force it to? It just won't work.
If an airline makes one TV commercial in Montreal and the next one in Toronto, it must ensure that for its commercial production the television station providing the technical crew in Toronto pays the new workers the same remuneration as that of the previous contractor in Montreal, notwithstanding the fact that both studios have collective agreements with NABET but at different rates of remuneration. It makes no sense.
This section just might be the proverbial hammer to kill a fly. We believe proposed section 47.3 is a completely unjustified intrusion into how air carriers of all sizes do business. The carriers must be free to seek, through the competitive tendering process, like every other industry group in the federal jurisdiction, the best available contractors to provide them services. But proposed section 47.3 takes away this fundamental right. The workers the bill ostensibly champions with this proposed section are already covered by an agreement. If this is the reason for its inclusion, I hope we have demonstrated it can be removed from the bill and these workers will continue to be protected.
While the motivation behind proposed section 47.3 may have been well intended, its practical impact on the aviation industry will be nothing short of disastrous and is extremely prejudicial. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to remove it.
On the issue of replacement workers, let me briefly restate our position with respect to proposed subsection 94(2.1), dealing with replacement workers. As stated in our brief, ATAC opposes the use of replacement workers to break a union or interfere in a union's legitimate right to represent its members. However, air carriers do have the right to attempt to maintain the ongoing operation of their business in the event of a work stoppage. The Sims task force report strikes a fair balance between these two rights.
ATAC has proposed wording that will provide the additional step needed to clarify what is meant by ``undermining a trade union's representational capacity''. We suggest that the CIRB's right to limit or ban the use of replacement workers should only be employed where an employer has been found by the board to be in material breach of the duty to bargain in good faith. This would establish prima facie evidence upon which a union could file a complaint to the board to invoke the provisions of 94(2.1) and prohibit the use of replacement workers for the duration of the work stoppage. With this important clarification, we believe the bill will give proper and complete meaning to the Sims report recommendations in this area.
In conclusion, ATAC has focused its concerns on only these two important issues because they directly impact upon the ability of any air carrier, large or small, to operate its business and remain viable. The labour code is not the legislative vehicle for ensuring the security of aircraft in airports. That properly belongs in the Aeronautics Act, and it is already being effectively managed. Similarly, employers who bargain fairly with their unions must have the ability to continue to operate their business and serve the travelling public in the event of a work stoppage.
Those are my remarks. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be more than happy to attempt to answer any questions members may have.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
We will now move to the question and answer session, and we'll start with the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I find that, the more witnesses we hear, the more elegantly you pronounce ``Bloc Québécois''. This is going to make me feel like coming back to this Committee.
I'd like to make sure I understand our witnesses' testimony properly. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask for quiet.
.1630
According to your association, which categories of workers will actually be affected by section 47.3 in part I of the Canada Labour Code? What's the actual experience? Having attended the briefing the minister organized with his kind associate Albano, I gathered there was a wish to maintain wages.
This was the aim of section 47.3 and you have to acknowledge that, for the legislator, it's not irresponsible to make sure that people who had a contract and received remuneration not suffer pay differences for the same work, even if an employer or contractor changes. This isn't irresponsible. It's something to be defended in a review like the one we are currently involved in.
So I'd like you to explain to us how this principle can be worrisome to the association you represent. What categories of workers are concerned? Give us a bit more substance so that we can be opposed to it. Up to now, I'm inclined to think we should keep the present wording of this section, although I'm prepared to allow myself to be influenced.
[English]
Mr. Crichton: I think there are two parts to the answer. Our understanding - and we've sought this from people who were involved in the drafting of the bill - is that the sole purpose of this proposed section was to address the issue, and indeed we were told by these people in the department that this was an issue that had been raised in an interdepartmental meeting with Transport Canada.
We have been unable to find anyone in Transport Canada who has raised that issue at all, and indeed Transport Canada is quite satisfied that the arrangements that were made eight years ago and have been continued ever since resolve that issue.
The people whom we've been told this proposed section was designed to protect, the passenger security screeners, in fact are the subject, if you will, of a bilateral arrangement that has already looked after that issue.
I think the second part of my answer would be as I indicated in my opening remarks. The proposed section as written would apply to any contracting that any air carrier or airport did with any other company providing services or goods in the federal jurisdiction. The list of the number of people who could be caught in that situation would just go on and on.
I'll give you another example. It's fairly routine in the airline business for one airline to contract another to perform ground handling services at a particular station. For instance, Air Transat may contract Canadian Airlines in Calgary to perform its passenger check-in, its baggage handling, its loading and offloading of the airplane, and those types of things. But it's also equally routine for airlines to change those contracts from time to time. They'll retender them, rebid them, and so on. It's entirely conceivable, using my example, that Air Transat could decide to change its contractor in Calgary from Canadian to Air Canada.
According to the provisions of this proposed section, Air Canada would have to pay the people who worked on Air Transat's flights, when they came in, the same as the Canadian employees were being paid pursuant to their collective agreements, even though that would be totally at odds with the collective agreements those employees of Air Canada have with Air Canada. Are we going to end up paying a person one rate of pay when they're working between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on an Air Transat flight and a completely different rate of pay for the rest of the day, when they're working on Air Canada flights? If Air Canada handles other airlines at that point, it just becomes a totally unmanageable situation. I know it wasn't intended, but with the way the proposed section is written, that is exactly what it does.
.1635
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: So, you tell me there are two considerations, of supervision, of management. You think, as a manager, you'll be caught in a situation in which one employee could be subject to several collective agreements, and this could become hard for an employer to manage. You think that because it doesn't concern just one category of employees.
You've pointed out to us that it could apply to security screeners, to ground handling services, catering services and advertising services. So, if I understand correctly, you fear this section will be given broader application, when, initially, it was concerned with the people responsible for screening passengers.
I thought I'd understood, and I'm sure my colleague Mr. Proud could shed some light on the matter for us, that it was with a view to maintaining wages, but in the light of what you're telling us, you're primarily concerned about management considerations. You think it won't actually work, that it won't be practical.
The minister said in the House that, with regard to service contracts, such as the fuelling of planes, if security screening is transferred as a result of a change of contractor, the new contractor has to pay the same wages to employees. You can see that the legislator's intention was to ensure wage maintenance. Earlier you seemed to be saying that it wasn't. Are we talking the same language? That was the point.
The minister, who is a great social-democrat, at least when he feels like it, was afraid that people would turn to immigrants and women who are vulnerable on the labour market. In large part, these are the people who occupy these jobs. Do you share this analysis?
[English]
Mr. Crichton: First of all, I think there are two parts to the answer. As to the breadth of the scope of the proposed section as it's written, we have a fairly firm legal opinion that tells us our interpretation is correct. It would apply to any contracting done by any aviation firm. There's no question about that. I'm entirely satisfied that's the case.
As to the issue of attempting to protect people in a contract situation when contracts change hands, there are a number of thoughts that occur to me. I don't think the purpose of the labour code is to interfere in the marketplace to determine how various companies go about contracting for goods and services. I think it is the place of the labour code to ensure that, whoever the subcontractor, contractor, or primary employer is, certain standards are observed in the employment of those people. I don't think we should go so far in the labour code as to interfere in the ability of companies to go out and get competitive contracting done in furtherance of their work. This proposed section as it's presently written in fact effectively removes the ability of competitive tendering in the contracting of services in the aviation field. I think that's a very long reach.
Given the background information we were given as to the purpose of this proposed section - and I repeat it was with respect to a concern over passenger security screeners - this goes so far beyond the stated purpose to us that we have a real problem with it. I also wonder why this deals with the aviation industry. If this is a principle that Parliament now wants to enshrine, why, out of all the various businesses in the federal jurisdiction, are we picking on aviation? Why are we picking on airlines? Why aren't we making this applicable to all other types of businesses that come under the Canada Labour Code? I'll answer my own question. I think the honest answer is, as I've said before, that the purpose behind this amendment was to look after a perceived problem with one small group of people, which is the passenger security screeners. That problem has been solved.
.1640
The Chairman: There's just a point of clarification. Mr. Proud.
Mr. Proud: I would like to pick up on that very question you just asked about why the air transportation industry is singled out. In most cases, when federal business contracts for services, the labour relations of the contractors and employees are subject to provincial laws. However, this is not the case in the air transportation sector. This is the only area in which this applies.
The other part to that is that I don't and can't believe you're coming here today to tell us that you want to be able to pay lower wages. Based on what you said about Air Canada vis-à-vis Canadian, that wouldn't be so. They couldn't pay them below the rate that Air Canada or Canadian is getting. If the wording is wrong, the wording will be fixed, because it was never intended for that.
This is put into place... You know this better than I do because of the situation back in 1988. You fellows have an agreement, and this is to solidify it, to make sure these people maintain it, and when the turnover takes place you don't do it just to get cheaper workers.
Mr. Crichton: If the proposed section was designed to deal with the passenger screening issue, perhaps it should just say that and be done with it - although I'm not recommending that.
Mr. Proud: It's to do with other issues too. It's to do with fuelling aircraft, baggage handling, and other things.
Mr. Crichton: I'm sorry, but I'll have to strongly disagree with that principle, because I totally fail to understand why you would single out the aviation industry for that kind of treatment. Certainly all of the other industries that come under federal jurisdiction contract out to third parties any number of services from time to time, and they are not all exclusively under provincial jurisdiction by any means at all. I really think there's something very strange going on here.
We made specific inquiries as to the rationale behind this proposed section, and we were told that it related strictly to the passenger security screeners. Now I'm hearing that you want to realign the whole aviation sector in terms of the ability of airlines to contract out services. If that's the philosophy and if that's what's going to happen, I'd suggest that the airline industry will be faced with a very difficult problem, probably an inability to contract any of this stuff out to these people.
The Chairman: Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I'm told that roughly 60% of Canadians travelling to U.S. destinations choose U.S. carriers, and the U.S. personnel that work for those carriers are not subject to part I of the Canada Labour Code. Specifically, they're not subject to restrictions on replacement workers. How much of a disadvantage does that place you as a carrier at when trying to compete with that very different scenario next door?
Mr. Crichton: I think of the Canadians travelling to the U.S., 60% would likely be on Canadian carriers. When Canadians travel internationally, they tend to favour Canadian air carriers over the foreign carriers. I happen to know that as an industry fact, so I would think it's probably 60%.
A voice: [Inaudible - Editor]
Mr. Crichton: Yes. That's Canadian's; that's not the whole market. It is a two-way market. You have Canadians going to the U.S. or other countries and you have people from those countries coming here. Of course, people come and go; they go in both directions. There is no question that U.S. labour laws in many areas are much less restrictive than many of the provisions in the Canada Labour Code. To the extent that it produces a lower operating cost, if you will, and it does, that is an advantage those carriers have over Canadian carriers.
.1645
But when you look at that, I would not look only at trans-border routes, for instance. A competitive advantage in your cost structure goes to your whole system. In the same way as U.S. fuel taxes on jet fuel are much lower than they are in Canada and it doesn't really help you at all to say, well, we should only look at that comparison on flights between the two countries...no, no, it's the total embedded cost structure of the entire airline, in its entire area of operation. If Canadian carriers have a structural cost problem that applies to their entire system, as opposed to a lower cost a competitor has across the border, that is very important.
Mr. Johnston: On the aspect of replacement workers, as you know, some union leaders have already said the use of any replacement workers, in their opinion, would be an undermining of the union. They would consider the use of any replacement workers as union-busting, or at least interference. You have to assume they would be putting as much influence as they could on the board to rule in their favour. How do you see this provision for replacement workers, the adjudication of whether or not they undermine the union, affecting your operations?
Mr. Crichton: The reason behind our relatively modest proposed amendment here is that the airline industry, along with the other FETCO employers, have in the spirit of compromise and consensus bought into the recommendations of the Sims report about the replacement-worker provisions, even though we did so reluctantly. Our concern is that the words in the statute as currently drafted leave a bit of what we think is an interpretation gap that could come back to haunt everybody down the road, five years from now, ten years from now, I don't know when, on the very point you made.
Naturally the unions would argue that any use of a replacement worker would undermine their representational capacity. Of course they'll argue that.
How is the decision going to be made? The statute doesn't give the board any guidance on how to make that decision. We are prepared to say to you yes, we could envision some circumstances where an employer who clearly bargained in bad faith tried to provoke a strike and had replacement workers trained for that purpose and never had any intention of reaching an agreement and negotiating properly in the first place. We are prepared to say that is a proper use of the provision. But the statute is silent and doesn't give guidance.
So what we're attempting to do here is to say let's amend it to say that in order for the board to use this clause and to prohibit or limit replacement workers, the board first has to have made a finding that the employer bargained in bad faith. Once that's in place, then we can avoid all this interpretation in this grey area, because the tools are there and the board now, under the existing statute, deals with applications of bad faith bargaining and so on. If that's the case, and if it's a material one - I don't mean somebody showed up for a meeting half an hour late or something like that - if it's a material breach, then let's have that as a prima facie trigger before the board could hear an application to ban replacement workers.
Then both sides would know what the rules were. The unions would know what the rules were. Management would know what the rules were. Management would know that they had better bargain properly, that they had better be careful, because if they conduct themselves in such a way that could support a bad faith bargaining claim, they could be in serious trouble.
.1650
The Chairman: We'll move to Mr. McCormick, then we'll go back to Mr. Proud andMr. Ménard, and that will be it.
Mr. McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being here, gentlemen.
I thought it was certainly interesting that two words arrived on the table: fuel taxes. They're quite topical words today. I wonder whether you're going to leak us any information on what's happening in Vancouver.
Your modest suggestion regarding proposed subsection 94(2.1) is countered in your remarks on the other section, proposed section 47.3. I don't want to pick on your comments, but no doubt you feel very correct. You figure you've had excellent advice and consultation, and you know where you stand with regard to 47.3. I just think we need to communicate.
You've mentioned that if this is imposed, then you wouldn't contract out for whatever services. I ask for a point of information. If you didn't contract out these services - we're talking about screening included - where are the services coming from? We just can't say that and turn our backs. We have to talk.
Mr. Crichton: Let me make two points of clarification, Mr. McCormick. I think your point is well made. I probably left that incomplete when I made the statement.
There are two things. The carrier will have an option of doing something itself, including screening. Carriers don't have to contract out screening; they can do it themselves if they want to.
The second thing is that because this clause as it's written applies only to contracts with a subcontractor who is subject to an existing collective agreement, they may very well start going to non-union suppliers or start arranging things so as to deal with non-union people in order to avoid this inability to tender and contract freely. I think it starts all kinds of situations in train that I don't think were ever intended.
Mr. McCormick: If I'm in agreement with your industry and I fly Canadian Airlines when possible - 99% of the time - which includes official travel and several... I've flown with at least three different airlines this year.
Today, the public is looking at our airlines. They probably will for the next while as we expand in this country. So public confidence comes into this factor too.
I'm on your side, but we have to be careful as we work this out. It's fine to say that you can go non-union. That's not for me to say. But again there is this thing about confidence among the public. We just can't drop these employees and bring new people in. You wouldn't want to do that, or I wouldn't want to do that, with our industry today or tomorrow. All of this is very important.
So on proposed section 47.3, you say the problem has been solved in the past, but we need to firm it up. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Crichton: Certainly, we'd be more than happy to provide the committee with the evidence of how it has been solved in writing between ourselves and the department and so on.
Let me address the confidence factor, because I think that's important. Of course, you're right, but the confidence factor really relates to the integrity of the process that the passenger screening people provide. That goes to their training and to the monitoring of the standards they provide. All of these things are set out in detailed regulatory format by Transport Canada, through the security section of Transport Canada that regulates and oversees this entire operation.
.1655
The air carriers are responsible. These regulations apply to the airlines, and only to the airlines. The airlines are not allowed to board people onto aircraft if they have not been properly screened in accordance with all of these regulations. The obligation is on the airline to make sure that the people who do the screening are properly trained and qualified, that their training is tested and documented, that they're checked out and retrained, that certain types of equipment are used, and so on. That's where the quality control is.
Now, like anything else in the economy, if a contractor changed and contractor A has all the trained people with all of the qualifications and so on - this happens in our economy every day - virtually all of those people will move from contractor A to contractor B. That's what happens when one guy loses a contract in a specialized field and another guy gets it. These people move over.
The only issue - and the only one that I think the bill is trying to address here - is the rate of pay. But we've already done that. We've already agreed, and we have been living up to that agreement for eight years. The rate of pay will be the same as those people come over. We have no reason to abandon that.
Our real concern here is that the section as written does something entirely different. It goes out and, in a big scoop, just takes in the whole field of contracting for goods and services in the aviation industry. It's just too much.
Mr. McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I was only looking at perception.
The Chairman: Mr. Proud.
Mr. Proud: I have three questions I want to ask, but they can be answered as we go along.
Other than the specific matters that you raised, do you find the overall package to be a pretty balanced one?
Mr. Crichton: Overall, I think this bill was a very good exercise in building a consensus on the legislation before it was introduced. There's no question about that. We participated quite a bit throughout the process, both ourselves and Howard on behalf of the association, and through FETCO, and I think it was a very good process.
As I said before, our concern on proposed section 47.3 is that we might not be here today if in fact this was part of that consultation. There was never a word spoken about it all through that two-year period. But overall, yes, we think the minister and the department are to be commended at having gone about the process in a very good way in terms of trying to get that consensus first - in a very difficult area in which to get a consensus, I might add.
Mr. Proud: Do you feel also, then, that the changes to the structure and powers of the board will improve the administration of the code? Are you satisfied with the representational...?
Mr. Crichton: I don't profess to be an expert on that. Certainly from my own conversations with knowledgeable people in this area, though, I will say that I think the general consensus is that it's going to be an improvement.
Mr. Proud: I'll come back to another question that you were asked earlier, dealing with replacement workers. One problem that some people are having with this, as you say, is that nothing in there tells the board the parameters or whatever that they have to follow. Do you believe that with qualified, capable people on this board, these situations that we've heard about over the last couple of days could arise - and some of them will - and that they will be handled fairly for both sides in these disputes?
There's no doubt that when this thing starts, there's going to be some jockeying around until everybody gets the rules straight, and then from there on in... This is the thing with the board. What I want to feel comfortable with is that this board has the ability to deal with each and every one of these issues that comes before it in a manner that is fair and equitable to all parties involved.
Mr. Crichton: The interesting thing that I've learned over the years, when dealing with boards and tribunals, is that the quality of the decisions that are made and the work that is done is very much dependent on the quality of the individuals who get appointed from time to time. Obviously, I don't think anybody can predict that going forward.
The other observation I would make in that regard, though, is that even if you make the assumption that all of the people who were ever appointed to the board were honest, hard working, diligent, intelligent, and so on, people can have honest disagreements over the interpretation of things.
.1700
One of the other things I've learned over the years, in terms of statutes, is that if Parliament means to give a certain intent to a particular clause, the more it spells out in order to remove any doubt about meaning, the better. Otherwise, tribunals and courts and so on... The great and wonderful thing about language is that you can interpret it in so many different ways. There are a lot of people out there who are paid a lot of money to argue that black is white, and so on.
In this particular one, we just feel that if we're going to take this big step, and if, as the Sims report clearly says - and as the minister said, he's adopting the philosophy of the Sims report - it's to stop an employer who clearly is negotiating in bad faith and has no intention of reaching an agreement, then let's put something in there that says it's the trigger that allows the board to say no, someone can't use replacement workers. It will remove any doubt and nobody can argue that it means something else.
Mr. Proud: Thank you.
The Chairman: Madam Terrana.
Mrs. Terrana: I just want an explanation, because I fail to see what you're saying under proposed section 47.3. It says, ``under the terms of a contract or other arrangement that is no longer in force''. It looks to me like it is covered, according to the wording of the bill.
It says specifically in this section:
- ``previous contractor'' means an employer who, under the terms of a contract or other
arrangement that is no longer in force
- So it is not what you have been describing - that it can in fact be just for a portion of the time,
that it's a takeover. Well, maybe you can explain to me how you read this, because this is the
way I read it, and it doesn't seem to be just for the transport...
Mrs. Terrana: Yes, please.
Mr. Howard P. Goldberg (Vice-President and Secretary, Air Transport Association of Canada): There are several occasions when a contractor providing contract service to an airline - let's again use the example of another airline - uses people who are already in place. For example, take the earlier suggestion of the Canadian Airlines people who were performing a service for Air Transat. If Air Transat changes its contract provider to Air Canada, most often there is no impact on the Canadian Airlines people. They were just using some excess capacity of people in a bid to take those people who may have been part-time and bring them into full-time work, for example, or to find other ways to use them. The contract has stopped being in force. A new contract is in place. It's the issue of what happens after you change contractors.
Let's make a switch. It's Air Canada that has the contract and it goes to Canadian. Air Canada's collective agreement with its ground service people has a higher rate of pay than the collective agreement that Canadian has for its ground service people. This is as a result of collective bargaining and whatever other factors. Given the current situation, that may have brought about a change in the rate of pay under a collective agreement. So we have a contract, and the contractor here is another airline because the airline has changed. What happens is that under the new agreement, those Canadian Airlines people who are providing services have to be paid the Air Canada rate for the time they're doing it with the new airline.
So what you're doing in this clause is imposing into a collective agreement, one already reached and agreed to by the parties, a different rate of pay than the collective agreement calls for, for providing exactly the same service. You're just checking in at Air Transat rather than checking in at Canadian Airlines. So it's the issue of the change in contractor and the change in rate that is forced upon the new contractor that may be different from what is in the already existing collective agreement for that new contractor.
Mrs. Terrana: I also wonder why you say it only applies to air transportation.
Mr. Goldberg: Well, it does, because in the early part of proposed section 47.3 it says, ``an industry referred to in paragraph (e) of the definition'', and paragraph (e) describes airports. I have it here -
Mrs. Terrana: It says:
- Notwithstanding sections 6 and 7 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, sections
47 and 47.2 apply in the place of sections 6 and 7 of that Act
- That's the only mention of airport transportation.
Mr. Goldberg: Excuse me, but under section 2 of the current code, Definitions, paragraph (e) - that's the one that is applied to here; it was referred to in proposed section 47.3 - and only paragraph (e) is applied. It says ``aerodromes, aircraft or a line of air transportation''. Keeping in mind how broad this is, that means anyone in the commercial aviation business, including local air taxi people, air flight training people, or anyone who may be involved in an activity in commercial aviation. If they contract for service with someone in the federal jurisdiction, they will have this similarly imposed on them for anything they do that's in the federal jurisdiction, including long distance calls. If you enter into a contract with a long distance provider, that long distance provider has unions and has collective agreements with those unions. They're all under the federal jurisdiction. That's what this says.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldberg.
We'll have to be mindful of the bell, but we're going to give Mr. Ménard a very brief question.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I'd like to make sure I understand correctly. You're afraid that a situation might arise in which the new Canada Industrial Relations Board, for want of clear directions, could lead to future generalized use of replacement workers. You want there to be directions given for defining the possibility of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. Do you expect these directions to be developed by the legislator or by the experts of the Canada Industrial Relations Board?
It's true that, in a way, it's vague. Nobody expected that the minister, in connection with replacement workers, would come up with a proposal like this one. It's far from sure that this proposition would be operational.
We'd have liked it to go a lot further, since in Quebec, since 1977, there has been an act respecting the use of replacement workers, and no one's any the worse off for it.
Who do you think these directives should come from? The legislator or the Board?
[English]
Mr. Crichton: We are simply asking that Parliament make its intention clear. I think that's good legislative practice. The background to this clause on replacement workers is the Sims report, and the minister has clearly said that.
The minister was not prepared to ban replacement workers outright. He has tried to steer a reasonable middle course, if you will, and he has basically adopted the logic in the Sims report. That report says replacement workers should only be banned when an employer has violated the obligation to bargain in good faith and to negotiate in good faith, and to avoid a situation that might arise in which an employer deliberately tries to use the collective bargaining process to get rid of a union. That is very clearly the rationale behind this section. It aims to stop somebody from acting in that fashion.
All we're suggesting is that Parliament make it clear that this is what it applies to. As a practical matter, we think our proposal will do that. It says that if the board has found that the employer bargained in bad faith on a material issue, the board is then able to entertain applications. They can decide the application on its own merit, whether they ban the replacement workers or not. But at least before they could even look into that, there would have to be a finding that the employer bargained in bad faith. That's to make it clear and to back up the rationale for this section in the first place.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Crichton, Mr. Goldberg, thank you very much for your presentation. You have raised some interesting points, and we'll of course evaluate them according to their merits.
Mr. Crichton: Thank you.
The Chairman: Now I would like to move to the issue raised earlier by Mr. George Proud in reference to clause-by-clause. We have approximately 10 to 15 minutes to deal with that matter.
Mr. Proud: Mr. Chairman, I would move that clause-by-clause study of Bill C-66 be started and completed on Tuesday, December 10, 1996.
.1710
Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): I second it.
The Chairman: It has been seconded by Ms Augustine.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Certainly, if the government decided to be uncivilized and act without consulting us about proceeding with clause-by-clause study, it would change the dynamics of this Committee. Before presenting an official motion, it would be courteous of you to let us know about the witnesses still to appear.
My party will not necessarily be opposed to the principle of the Labour Code. As MPs, you've all sat in the opposition, except for the gentleman in front of me, who was elected in a by-election. You know that the opposition's job is to allow the witnesses to have their say.
Before voting in favour of beginning clause-by-clause study, I want to be sure that all the witnesses on the list have appeared or will appear. Tell us who's still to appear. If we've used up all the time and everyone's had their say, we're certainly going to cooperate with the same intelligence we've always demonstrated. But if that's not so, then we're going to make sure that the people who have something to say have a chance to do so.
Some forty witnesses came to testify before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons about employment equity, legislation with far greater application.
I cannot think that, on a bill of such importance, which deals with the search for balance, with the values of our civilization, we're going to act in haste. Nothing can make the government act in haste, and I repeat to the Chairman that the opposition is not going to oppose the bill just for the sake of opposing, because, basically, we're pretty much in favour of the bill. We're only going to submit a few amendments which, I hope, will be allowed by the government.
Still, I want to be sure that everyone who has something to say has appeared, and I wish to warn the government against acting in haste, which would harm the working atmosphere of this Committee.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne (Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte): I'm not sure I agree that the discussion should be left open-ended. However, I would like to point out that, on reviewing the list of witnesses to appear, there doesn't seem to be as much regional balance as I would like. I've since been contacted by representatives from the province of Newfoundland who would like to appear before the committee. It's just two representatives, and I would like the committee to consider that.
The Chairman: Sure. The way it has traditionally been done in this committee is that the parliamentary secretary would represent the interests of the Liberal party. Mr. Ménard, of course, as a labour critic, is representing the interests of the Bloc Québécois, its membership and all allies.Mr. Johnston is doing the same thing for the Reform Party.
We had established an informal subcommittee that met, I believe, with Mr. Nault, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Development, and withMr. Johnston and Mr. Ménard. Is that correct? You were going to come up with a list. Of course, as chair, I am your servant - never take me for granted - but I think these detailed issues should be addressed within that forum.
Yes, of course, it goes without saying that when you're dealing with a piece of national legislation you want the regions to be well represented. The question remains, though, if my memory serves me correctly, that at the last meeting, when we were discussing this particular issue, the subject came up of the government's ``agenda,'' in reference to its parliamentary agenda, and I thought someone - I can't remember if it was Mr. Proud or Mr. Nault - stated that in fact it was the wish or desire of the government to report this particular piece of legislation, this bill, to the House prior to the Christmas break. Is that correct?
Mr. Proud: Yes.
The Chairman: Knowing for certain that we will not be sitting past the 13th of December, we are going to be faced with a bit of a challenge. In order for me to report to the House on December 11, 12 or 13, I would have to get the clause-by-clause done.
So I leave that to you, but we're dealing with a motion and eventually we'll have to vote on it.
.1715
Is there a question?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I'd like to ask a question, but first a point of order.
Why don't you defer the vote till tomorrow, since we're going to meet tomorrow too and we could meet with the clerk? You don't seem to be in much of a hurry to tell us about the witnesses yet to appear and I'd like to make sure they can appear.
I share the concern of Newfoundland, a province I plan to visit soon. We have to make sure that all regional representation is taken into account. We haven't heard many witnesses up to now, and I think we have to make sure that the list tabled by the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois will be given all the consideration it deserves.
So, tell us how many witnesses are still to appear and then we'll see how we'll behave when the vote takes place.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, we heard your point.
Does the Reform Party have a problem with clause-by-clause on Tuesday?
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, up to this point I haven't seen the witness list. I don't know whether it's possible actually to hear all the witnesses on the list by Tuesday.
A voice: There are 26 witnesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Twenty-six witnesses who asked to appear?
[English]
Mr. Byrne: No, there are 26 witnesses on the list altogether.
The Chairman: Can we perhaps approach this in a different way?
If we agree that in fact we will report this bill prior to the Christmas break, then we could also agree that all efforts should be made to hear all those people, including sitting on Monday and Friday. Some people might make it on Friday and some -
Mr. McCormick: Or long hours on Monday and Thursday.
The Chairman: Okay. So Monday and Thursday, long hours...that all efforts be made... I think that's quite reasonable, is it not?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, begin by telling us how many witnesses remain. Maybe we don't have to do so, but it seems to be hard to find this out. Can the clerk tell us whether there are eight, ten...
[English]
The Chairman: Perhaps it was my mistake. I took certain things for granted - for example, the fact that we and the clerk and everybody involved will attempt to fit in as many people as possible. I take that for granted as a parliamentarian. It's not a point of debate for me.
Of course, we want to hear as many people as possible. There's no reason why we shouldn't. There's no reason why we shouldn't even extend our sittings to the late hours of the day or the morning. We've done that before, and we will continue to do that if that's what it takes.
The point I'm making is that there's a very straightforward motion that on Tuesday, December 10, we will deal with clause-by-clause, and before that all efforts will be taken by all those involved in the scheduling process - and forwarding lists, by the way, because sometimes members of Parliament don't forward their list to the clerk on time, believe it or not; that does happen from time to time - and that we move accordingly. That's the proposal I have on the floor, and I think it's a reasonable one.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: For quite some time, I've been asking for the clerk to give us the list. It looks as though you don't want to do so. Therefore I'll have to remind you that you're going to find in the jurisprudence...
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. We'll do that right now. Go ahead.
[Translation]
The Committee Clerk: Next week, we have...
[English]
Do you want me to name them?
The Chairman: Yes.
The Clerk: The B.C. Maritime Employers Association, la CSN, the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec - FTQ, the Grain Services Union, the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association, and tomorrow we have the Western Grain Elevator Association.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: The list the Bloc Québécois gave you bore the names of 25 witnesses. How many were contacted and how many said they wanted to appear?
[English]
We worked very hard.
.1720
The Chairman: Is that the one you got from the Sims report, a new copy?
We're going to hear from your list.
[Translation]
The Clerk: The CNTU couldn't come. I think I already mentioned that to you. The Grain Services Union, whom you invited...
Mr. Ménard: Could the motion be deferred till tomorrow, Mr. Chairman?
[English]
The Chairman: Do you want to vote now, or do you want to have the motion tomorrow?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I think it would be better tomorrow.
[English]
Mr. Proud: If we vote now, and we're sure we're going to hear the witnesses, there is no problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I'd prefer us to vote tomorrow. A point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd prefer it if we voted tomorrow.
[English]
The Chairman: We'll defer it until tomorrow.
The meeting is adjourned.