EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 5, 1996

.1600

[English]

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.

We have the pleasure of having with us, from the B.C. Maritime Employers Association,
Mr. Wilds, president and chief executive officer.

I'm sure you're not new to these parliamentary committee hearings. You have approximately one-half hour and you may divide it into 15 minutes and 15 minutes, or 10 minutes and 20 minutes.

Welcome, and we look forward to your comments.

Mr. R.V. Wilds (President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I also thank the scheduled speakers at this time for allowing me to precede them on the schedule.

We regret that due to time constraints, we were unable to have our submission available in both official languages.

I have provided a submission. It is not my intent to cover all of the submission, but I will deal with a couple of areas in particular. Many of the other areas have been dealt with in other submissions by employer groups, such as FETCO and the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association.

The British Columbia Maritime Employers Association is an unaccredited employers association currently consisting of 77 member companies, engaged in ship operations, ship agency, stevedoring, dock operations and bulk loading operations at west coast Canadian ports. We've attached a list of our membership for your information.

The primary activities of the association involve providing labour relations advice and services to the community we serve. Our association handles day-to-day labour relations matters, collective agreement administration, discipline of the workforce, grievance, arbitration, human rights, employment equity and related matters. In addition, we also provide advice and assistance in the areas of health and safety and claims management and are responsible for industry longshore training.

The association is involved in the establishment and maintenance of various benefits, including health and welfare, pensions and the employee assistance program.

We own and operate the Vancouver dispatch facility and are responsible for the dispatch of the longshore labour force to all member facilities in the port of Vancouver and Squamish-Woodfibre areas. We jointly participate with the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union in the operation of the dispatch centres in the outports of Stewart, Prince Rupert, New Westminster, Chemainus, Port Alberni, and Victoria, B.C.

The association represents members' interests with respect to regulatory matters in the areas of labour relations, pension, health and safety, human rights, employment equity, worker's compensation, and legislative reform of a general nature that affects our members.

We are responsible for collective agreement negotiations on behalf of our members, and therefore all of our labour relations of our member companies are conducted pursuant to the Canada Labour Code.

We participated in the hearings of both the Industrial Inquiry Commission, with respect to the west coast ports, and the Sims task force, appointed to review part I of the Canada Labour Code.

With respect to the bill itself, as members of FETCO - Federally Regulated Employers in Transportation and Communication - we fully support and endorse its submission on Bill C-66. While we commend the government for many of the proposed changes to the code, we concur with FETCO in taking exception to those provisions identified by FETCO and included in its brief presented to your committee on November 26, 1996.

Furthermore, we feel it necessary to express our concern over what appears to be the haste with which the government is moving to pass this bill. Our review of the bill has been less than thorough due to the lack of time available, but nevertheless it has led to the conclusion that there are numerous areas of concern.

I will not deal with the areas in my brief in detail, but I would like to address specifically proposed section 18, where we have concerns with board powers and restructuring of bargaining units, but with respect to proposed section 47.3 in particular, dealing with airport and carriers' contracts, it is our view that this proposed amendment has the effect of eliminating the tender process in industries described in paragraph 2(e) of the code.

.1605

Furthermore, this section contemplates extending its application by empowering the Governor in Council to enact regulations designating other industries that would then be subject to this obligation. That of course could affect the ports. This amendment was not part of the Sims report.

To propose curtailment and to in fact propose the abolition of a practice so fundamental to the orderly conduct of business in the federal sector without consultation with those directly affected is, in our respectful submission, unacceptable.

Moreover, the proposed amendment has the potential to affect all federally regulated employers by virtue of the powers given to the Governor in Council.

If enacted, this provision has the potential to also adversely affect free market competition on a scale heretofore unheard of in this country.

Next, we comment on the proposed subsections for section 60 about the powers of arbitrators and arbitration boards. That parallels the FETCO report.

We also mention proposed subsection 94(3), prohibitions relating to replacement workers and, also in section 94, the continuation of insurance plans during strikes and lockouts, along with proposed subsection 109(1), communications with off-site workers. Our positions on those issues parallel those of FETCO and of the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association and there's no sense in repeating them. They're contained in our brief.

But the area that was not addressed by FETCO, and that I'm sure has been addressed by others appearing before you, has specifically to do with the major concern of our industry. That has to do with proposed subsection 87.7(1), Services to grain vessels.

In addition to those matters I've referred to in the FETCO brief, some of which are also referred to in here, we must in particular express our strenuous objection to proposed subsection 87.7(1). This provision affords unprecedented provincial treatment to one export cargo, namely grain, over all other export cargoes handled at west coast Canadian ports.

This provision is discriminatory to all other export cargoes in that it requires the longshoring industry to provide employees to tie up, let go, and load grain vessels in the unfortunate event of a labour dispute between ourselves and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Canadian area. In addition to being discriminatory to all other exporters, this selective provision provides absolutely no consideration to importers of goods.

As an industry, we cannot understand how the government can in good conscience propose special treatment for one segment of the export market while ignoring the negative consequences to all other segments of the export and import trade in the event of a labour dispute at west coast ports. This legislation has the effect of denying equal treatment to all users of port facilities, whether importers or exporters, for what appears to be political motivation alone.

The government must ask what this proposed legislation says to all those employed in the forest products industry, the sulphur industry, the potash industry, the petrochemical industry, the coal industry and the retail industry of this country. The only answer can be this one: Grain is more important than all of your industries.

Is this what the government is trying to accomplish in the amending of the legislation? While we do not believe that to be the case, it's very difficult under these circumstances to arrive at any other conclusion.

What are the implications of this discriminatory provision for the rest of the Canadian economy and for all those Canadians who earn their livelihoods in all those other industries?

We believe that the negative impact on the Canadian economy resulting from a labour dispute at west coast ports is serious and not just confined to the movement of grain.

Canada is not a one-commodity exporting country. We depend on export of many different commodities, with substantial employment in each of those industries dependent upon a reliable and efficient transportation system in today's globally competitive environment. The Canadian government simply cannot justify an interruption in the flow of all other commodities while the export of grain is allowed to continue.

.1610

Our industry proposed alternatives to strikes and lockouts in the port sector for all commodities, not just grain. That was not done lightly, because we strongly believe in the principles of the right to strike and lock out. The government, however, rejected our proposals regarding the prohibition of strikes and lockouts. We now fail to understand how this government can justify legislation that selectively provides protection for only one segment of the economy.

Labour legislation, if it is to be effective, must be balanced. A provision that requires employers to continue to employ individuals to service one sector of their business while the remainder of their customers are left to incur the effects of a labour dispute does not constitute balanced and fair labour legislation. What incentive would customers have to support an employer's attempt to improve terms and conditions in a collective agreement that lowers the costs of services if another customer who will benefit from such changes suffers no inconvenience?

Further, the employers who provide grain services would be subsidizing their employees by being required to provide them with work opportunity, although at a reduced level. In the longshoring industry, which operates on a daily dispatch system, it would be easy for the union to rotate individuals through the system, thereby reducing the economic impact of a dispute for all employees, creating the probability of an extended dispute.

Before the elimination of the western grain transportation act, it was mandatory for subsidized grain to be exported via a Canadian port. This could have provided some justification for special treatment in previous years, but that is no longer the case. Subsidies are no longer paid. Thus grain, like any other commodity, can be exported via any port.

The fact that the proposed code permits labour disputes in other sectors, such as the grain workers, PSAC, and the railways, also makes no sense. If the intent is to eliminate disruptions to the flow of grain, then why are the amendments confined to longshoring? This selective prohibition will prove to be disruptive to labour relations at west coast ports, since it will result in selective disruptions in the bargaining relationship between ourselves and the ILWU, Canadian area.

We have reviewed the history of labour disputes that have impacted on west coast ports since 1986, and the following was observed. In 1986 there was a six-day labour dispute between our organization and the ILWU, Canadian area. The key issue was the elimination of the infamous container clause. We were legislated back to work.

In 1994 we experienced a thirteen-day labour dispute between ourselves and the Canadian area of the ILWU. The key issue in that dispute was economics. Again we were legislated back to work.

In 1992 there was a two-day labour dispute in our industry between the foremen's association and Local 514, representing the foremen, over economic issues. It was settled by the parties. There was a four-day dispute in 1995 between the foremen's association and Local 514, representing the foremen, over terms and conditions of work. The parties were legislated back to work.

So we have had 4 disputes, losing 25 days, 3 of which required legislation to order us back to work. But we would point out that during the same period the following labour disputes have disrupted the flow of grain.

In 1987 there was a general one-day strike by the British Columbia Federation of Labour. In 1987 there was a five-day labour dispute between the railways and their unions. They were legislated back to work.

In 1987-88 there was a 42-day dispute between Prince Rupert Grain and the Grain Workers Union. They were legislated back to work.

In 1991 there was a seven-day dispute between the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators' Association and the Grain Workers Union, and they were legislated back to work.

In 1991 there was a sixteen-day dispute between the Government of Canada Department of Transport and PSAC. They were legislated back to work.

In 1995 there was a twenty-day dispute between the railways and their unions. Again, they were legislated back to work.

It has been suggested that grain has been the primary reason why the government has been required to intervene in labour disputes at west coast ports. The above history clearly demonstrates that government has intervened in far more disputes than just those between port employers and their union. Was the movement of grain the issue for intervention in those other disputes? If so, why are the parties involved in those disputes not prohibited from disrupting the movement of grain in the future?

With the ever-increasing need for improved efficiency and competitiveness in the entire transportation system, what assurances are there that we will not see disputes if needed changes are not jointly agreed upon? The rail, air, and marine sectors are all facing the need for modernization and productivity improvements in the new deregulated environment. Failure to meet these challenges will, in our view, place the Canadian transportation system in jeopardy.

.1615

Finally, we suggest that the origin of this provision was neither recommended by the Industrial Inquiry Commission or the Sims task force.

In conclusion, we urge you to recommend the elimination of this discriminatory proposal, which has the effect of establishing preferential classes of export cargo. It places import cargo at a disadvantage. This can and will negatively impact many retail operators across the country.

We suggest that this is bad legislation. As such, rather than serving to improve labour relations in the interests of all Canadians, it could have the opposite effect.

If the government is truly concerned about disputes at west coast ports, we encourage it to revisit the proposals put forward by our industry. They would have the effect of eliminating such disputes without discriminating in the movement of commodities by allowing for a resolution of the issues by means of final-position binding arbitration, mediation arbitration, or any combination of those mechanisms, depending upon the issues in dispute.

Failing the government's interest in pursuing that course of action, we believe all commodities must be treated equally.

We thank you for your consideration of our submission on these matters of great importance to our industry. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilds.

I would first like to thank you for putting this whole issue into a sort of historical context. It will help us figure out a few things.

Mr. Ménard from the Bloc Québécois, followed by Mr. Johnston - one five-minute round.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Calm down, Mr. Chairman. I know that in general you are rather disappointed with the bill because there are four clauses that annoy you.

You even used some rather strong words with respect to the government. That somewhat upset me, especially when you spoke about political treatment with respect to the grains issue.

This morning, we heard an excellent brief from the Canadian Maritime Worker's Council, where both maturity and technology worked together.

I would like to know that you think about their brief. On page 14 they say:

Under a new provision of the Code (section 87.7), ``employees and the bargaining agents shall continue to provide the services normally provided to ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels and the movement of the grain vessels in and out of a port''. We think this is a timely exception and have no objection to it.

This committee is in a somewhat paradoxical situation. What might have been, from all appearances, a restriction for unions has been well received and what we thought would be a benefit for the people you represent has not been well received.

What you really would have hoped for is that this go even further. Do you not think you're on a somewhat slippery slope in calling strongly for a broadening of the preferential treatment provided for under section 87.7? DO you not think that, in the end, that would undermine labour relations that you seem to say are quite sound?

[English]

Mr. Wilds: Our position, I guess, has to be straightforward. We do not support selective strikes or lockouts. By having to work one sector of the industry, we are effectively saying to all other customers that we're going to help them, but we're not going to help you. We think it's discriminatory. We don't believe it's fair legislation.

I can understand why my counterparts in the ILWU believe it's a good idea. They get to have a segment of the workforce that gets the work while we're in a labour dispute. In one particular local, that could have a significant impact on us being able to conclude a collective agreement where, in recent years, a lot of the work opportunity in that local was associated with the loading of grain vessels.

Effectively, you're saying to us that we should subsidize a labour dispute against ourselves by providing work opportunities to a segment of our workforce. We're not in favour of doing that. In addition to that, we're not in favour of discriminating against the commodities we handle. We believe that all exports and imports are important, and we should work on all or none.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I'm not sure that I understood you. You say that ultimately section 87.7 could be interpreted as being a subsidy. Could you please expand on that. I'm not sure I follow you.

[English]

Mr. Wilds: No, I did not say that it could be interpreted as a subsidy. I said it could be interpreted as if we subsidized a labour dispute against ourselves. By paying people to perform work servicing the grain industry during a labour dispute, we would be subsidizing it as employers. We would be prolonging it by not having the impact of a strike affecting all employees, only selected ones.

.1620

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Wilds, for your very succinct presentation. I see that you have a favourable attitude toward final-offer selection arbitration. In the area of keeping the ports running, certainly this is something that was recommended to both the Sims report and to the inquiry into west coast ports.

Maybe you'd like to just expand on that a bit and take a moment or two to share your thoughts with us.

Mr. Wilds: Our industry recognizes that the impact of a labour dispute on the waterfront has significant consequences to the local, regional and national economy because of the significant tonnage of cargo that is moved through Canadian west coast ports and because of its immediate impact on many other industries.

Based on that and, quite frankly, on the disappointing history we've had, we believe as an industry that because of the nature of our business it was vital for Canadian exporters and importers to use ports that were more or less captive to us. We provide a service. In the event that we had a labour dispute, in some cases, shippers had no other alternative but to have their cargo sit and wait.

When the labour dispute ends, employers and employees go back to work. We work for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In many cases, those who suffer the largest economic impact as a result of a labour dispute between ourselves and our employees are not the participants in the labour dispute but innocent third parties.

Based on that, despite the fact that we strongly believe - I personally and professionally have been involved in this business for 30 years - in the principle of the right to strike and walk out, when those who suffer the most as a result of that are not the parties to the dispute, one has to question whether or not that makes a lot of sense today.

Say there are other mechanisms available. We initially proposed only final-offer selection as our suggestion, but in discussion with the Industrial Inquiry Commission, we saw the error of that. We then indicated that maybe there should be a series of options available to resolve our disputes.

If it's strictly economic, then final-offer selection arbitration makes sense. If there are complicated terms and conditions of employment, then maybe mediation arbitration makes more sense.

In any event, there are avenues available today, without having to resort to strikes and lockouts, to conclude collective agreements that will protect the interests of both parties, providing there's a reasonable mechanism to provide it. That was the concept.

Mr. Johnston: It certainly would seem to make more sense than the back-to-work legislation or the others. The alternative perhaps would be a declaration making them essential services. It would seem to me that some combination of what you suggested there would keep the parties bargaining earnestly. They would perhaps arrive at a solution without having so much government intervention.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of this. My understanding, Mr. Wilds, is that your organization played a fairly significant role in the discussions in the past two years.

Mr. Wilds: That's correct.

Mr. Nault: By your presentation, it doesn't sound like you agree very much with what anyone else said at those discussions. Would that be correct?

Mr. Wilds: No, I don't think that's correct.

Mr. Nault: You didn't have a lot of good things to say about the whole process of consultation. As I understand it, when there's a discussion between employers and employees with the Department of Labour and all the stakeholders, there's a certain amount of give and take. At the end, there's an agreement that this is about as good as it's going to get, and that we'll accept that.

.1625

By your brief it doesn't sound as if that's the situation that has occurred, whereas in other briefs we had more positive feedback. There is an acceptance: even though we're not perfectly happy with this clause or that clause, we can live with it. Why is it you're so far off on your own track, at least at this point? I would say you've been the most disappointed in the process of any of the presenters we've had, including FETCO, I might add.

Mr. Wilds: With all due respect, I don't think I've indicated we have been all that disappointed with the process. We may be disappointed with what came out of the process, as was FETCO in the comments they made on many more issues than I've raised in our brief today. The concentrated effort we put forward in this brief had to deal with an issue FETCO was not involved in. That had to do with proposed subsection 87.7(1), which directly affects our industry. Understandably, FETCO took no position on that, so it was not part of the consensus process that was conducted between representatives from the CLC and FETCO with the Sims task force and representatives of the Department of Labour. This was an issue that was dealt with in depth within the Industrial Inquiry Commission, and we made the same representations there as we've made here today. We think it was important, since this appears in the draft legislation, to be very candid and straightforward about our industry's views on those issues here. This is where the legislation is going to be amended or not amended.

There are many good things in the bill. We're not suggesting there aren't. There's a lot of balance in the bill. We happen to be very unhappy about this particular provision in the bill.

Mr. Nault: Would it be fair to say, then, that the discussion by Sims and his task force on page 92 is something you did not notice was discussed thoroughly as it relates to this particular proposed section 87.7, or was it in fact that you were suggesting it because it wasn't a recommendation? What was your rationale? You made it quite clear in your brief this was not part of the Sims task force, but in fact it was a major part of it.

Mr. Wilds: I believe the Sims task force recommended that the minister have additional consultations with the parties on that issue. He did that. We took exactly this position with the minister in those consultations in Vancouver. This is not a different position from the one this industry has taken from the outset.

Mr. Nault: Okay, there are two more points I would like to get clarification on. First, my understanding is there was an undertaking by the partners in this discussion that this particular proposed section would be reviewed in 1999 to see whether in fact it gave us the results we were aiming for. Is that not of any consequence to you?

Mr. Wilds: It doesn't give us any consolation if legislation is enacted that will be reviewed in 1999. Why would we take consolation from that? We'll be back to collective bargaining before that. I would like to believe we don't have to rely on legislation, but rather we can develop a relationship with our workforce such that we will not have to end up using any part of the legislation. I think in our particular bargaining we've had one labour dispute since 1986, despite the fact that we've had considerable numbers of rounds of bargaining. I would like to believe we'll return to that without having to use any legislation. But it's not comforting to have legislation in place that we believe is not fair, and it would be remiss for us not to comment on that.

Mr. Nault: I certainly can understand and sympathize that from your perspective you would think it's unfair, but from a legislator's perspective I would think it's grossly unfair that we have to legislate for your particular part of the world almost on a yearly basis. It says only one thing about the process: it doesn't work. Would you not think we as legislators and people who are interested in public policy would have to make a decision one way or the other as to how to rectify this problem when in fact the parties can't seem to get together to agree on how to fix this?

Mr. Wilds: It didn't just apply, and the government wasn't only required to legislate, in our industry. They have legislated in many other industries on the west coast, but we're the only one singled out. If everybody is included I guess we really don't have a whole lot of complaint. But if we're required to service the grain industry yet the railways can shut it down, is that equitable? You've legislated the railways back twice in the last ten years and us only once.

I understand what you're saying. It's not a pleasant experience for us in this profession to have failed and to have a labour dispute. Unfortunately it has been experienced. I think we've done a lot to improve that. We've had some failures in the last couple of years, but I would be optimistic that the relationship we have with the longshore union has come a long way and we can solve many of our own problems. Like anyone else, I can't sit here and guarantee there's not going to be another labour dispute. I don't have a magic wand.

.1630

Mr. Nault: No, I wouldn't bet on it.

The Chairman: Mr. Wilds, on behalf of the committee, I would like personally to thank you for your contribution to Bill C-66.

Mr. Wilds: Thank you for your time.

The Chairman: Now we are going to hear from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Susan Rutherford, vice-president, and Luc Grenier, negotiator.

Welcome. You may begin.

Ms Susan Rutherford (Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): Thank you very much for the introduction.

I would like to present Luc Grenier, who is a negotiator on the staff of the Professional Institute. He's here as my expert this afternoon.

I also wish to apologize for the fact that Mr. Steve Hindle, president of the Professional Institute, was unable to attend this afternoon because of a prior engagement, one he couldn't cancel, with the illustrious Treasury Board.

The Chairman: You have excellent representatives.

Ms Rutherford: Thank you for agreeing to hear from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada this afternoon on the proposed changes in the Canada Labour Code in Bill C-66.

The Professional Institute welcomes the government's initiative in updating the Canada Labour Code and generally supports the amendments that appear in Bill C-66. Our concerns are confined to five problem areas, which we discuss in this brief, and to the emerging problem of the labour relations jurisdiction that should apply to federal government services that are being moved to new forms of agency outside the traditional public service.

The Professional Institute represents 33,000 professional workers, most of whom work in the federal public service or in the provincial public services in New Brunswick and Manitoba. In the past these employees have been governed almost exclusively under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, at the federal level, or by similar legislation for provincial government employees. This situation is now changing through the processes of downsizing, devolution, and the creation of agencies under the government's policy of alternative service delivery. Changes in the Canada Labour Code are therefore of increasing interest to the institute as the number of its members governed by this code increases.

The first of our concerns deals with the rights to be heard. The powers of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board are proposed to be amended by adding a new provision permitting the board to decide any matter that comes before it without holding an oral hearing. This is the proposed new section 16.1.

While the institute endorses the general objective of streamlining the code in Bill C-66, we are concerned that proposed section 16.1 and the related amendments may lead to a situation where the board seldom if ever agrees to the legitimate request of a party to hold an oral hearing before determining an issue. We suggest that the proposed section be modified to require the board to conduct an oral hearing on the request of a party where there is reasonable justification for such a hearing.

Our second concern deals with compulsory strike votes. The government proposes, with proposed section 87.3, to codify binding procedures that a union must follow in order to secure a mandate for strike action from the employees it represents in the bargaining unit. Bill C-66 will require a secret ballot vote to be conducted within 60 days prior to initiating a strike. The Canada Industrial Relations Board will have the power to review any complaints related to the conduct of the vote by the union.

.1635

The institute is not aware that there are real and persisting problems in the processes used by bargaining agents currently under the code in preparing for the possibility of strike action and questions the need for this statutory intervention.

Our third concern deals with voting by non-members. One feature in particular of the proposed strike vote procedures stipulated by proposed section 87.3 presents grave difficulties: the requirement that a secret ballot vote be conducted among the employees in the bargaining unit rather than among those employees in the bargaining unit who are members of the union.

The existence of a union is dependent upon its ability to maintain majority support among the employees of a bargaining unit. It need not be supported by every employee, yet it bears the continuing legal obligation to represent the interests of all employees.

The Rand formula used in many Canadian workplaces recognizes this obligation by requiring all employees to financially support the union chosen by the democratic decision of affected employees. This crucial formula protects the right of any individual employee to decline membership in the union without losing the benefits and protection of a collective agreement. For its part, the union is not compelled to extend voting and other participation rights to non-members. These are core rights of membership and represent the principal incentive for individuals to affiliate as members of the union.

The proposed amendment undermines the careful balance of the Rand formula and intervenes deeply into the internal affairs of the union. It is not simply an isolated requirement relating to infrequent cases of strike action. Instead, it may well force many unions, including the Professional Institute, to modify their governing constitution and by-laws and radically alter the concept of membership. Moreover, full compliance may be next to impossible. In the institute's case, we are often unable to locate non-members because adequate identifying information is not provided by employers, and non-members themselves often insist on privacy.

Both on principle and for practical reasons, the institute opposes including employees in any strike vote procedure if they have consciously and freely made a decision not to become a member of the union. We therefore urge the committee not to endorse proposed section 87.3, or failing that, to provide that the required strike vote be conducted among all members of the union in the bargaining unit.

Our fourth problem deals with essential services. I would like to make general comments on this concern first.

Bill C-66 proposes the inclusion of essential services requirements in the Canada Labour Code for the first time. Employers and unions are required to negotiate arrangements for such essential services before the right to strike or lockout can become effective.

The institute understands the public's concerns for the maintenance of services essential to safety and health; nevertheless, we are disappointed that the government should feel it necessary to require as a matter of law a process that we believe responsible employers and bargaining agents are already undertaking voluntarily. We are concerned that this inclusion may lead to the proliferation of cases requiring intervention by the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Let's talk about the case of NAV CANADA. The Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, recently passed by Parliament, created a not-for-profit commercial enterprise for air traffic control, now known by the name of NAV CANADA, which is regulated for labour relations purposes by the Canada Labour Code.

.1640

The act establishing NAV CANADA contains detailed measures in sections 73 through 84 for the maintenance of services related to humanitarian or emergency flights in the event of a strike or lockout. These provisions address the special requirements of the civil aviation sector and enjoy the support of the employer, the unions involved and the government.

We are concerned that Bill C-66 could create confusion between the essential services provisions of the Canada Labour Code, if enacted, and of the NAV CANADA act. In order to avoid this problem, the institute asks the committee to include a stipulation in Bill C-66 to the effect that sections 73 through 84 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act are deemed to comply with the essential services provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

Our fifth problem deals with alternative service delivery. A prominent element of the government's approach to reducing the size of the public service is its intention to decentralize various functions to a variety of new entities in the public and private sectors. Under the alternative service delivery initiative, 6,000 employees have already been transferred to NAV CANADA, as indicated above, with the Canada Labour Code as the applicable labour law. Three other large ASD projects have already been announced or are currently being legislated: a national food inspection agency, an agency for Parks Canada, and a proposed Canada border and revenue service to carry out functions now performed by Revenue Canada.

The institute is discussing these ASD initiatives with Parliament and with government officials in a number of settings. There is a major issue involving the Canada Labour Code, however, that we should like to bring to your attention. This is the question of which labour law will be used to regulate labour relations in the new ASD organizations as they are created.

In the federal sector, the choice of applicable labour legislation is the Canada Labour Code or the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The latter applies in situations when a new organization is removed from a department of government and is given separate employer status, but remains within the broader public service. We know that the government intends the new national food inspection agency to be such a separate employer under the PSSRA, and we suspect this will be a precedent for the proposed Parks Canada and revenue service agencies.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act is an outdated labour law that restricts rather than encourages the ability of employers and bargaining agents to solve their own problems. Bargaining rights under the Public Service Staff Relations Act are severely limited. In many aspects of labour-management relations, the act takes an intrusive and paternalistic approach that does not facilitate a mature relationship between the parties in the workplace.

The institute has for years been on record as supporting the revision of the PSSRA, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, to make its provisions comparable to those of the Canada Labour Code. Some minor improvements have been made, but the Public Service Staff Relations Act remains a very deficient and antique labour law.

In the case of a separate employer, the act applies numerous restrictions on matters that can be bargained or settled through arbitration, which are absent from the Canada Labour Code. It also excludes employees from the protection of the Public Service Employment Act without providing an alternative that would allow employees to negotiate the areas covered by the Public Service Employment Act in their collective agreement.

Between the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code, there is no question which statute provides a more modern basis for the conduct of effective labour-management relations. Nonetheless, some public service managers continue to promote the Public Service Staff Relations Act in preference to the code, ignoring the many precedents of organizations that successfully operate under the code in the wider federal public sector.

.1645

The institute urges the committee to include in its report to the House of Commons on Bill C-66 a special recommendation to the government that the Canada Labour Code should be preferred as the statute applicable to new organizations created by alternative service delivery initiatives. If they are to be created, it is crucial that each new service delivery agency be given the most modern tools available in order to maximize prospects for success. In the field of labour legislation, this must be the Canada Labour Code, not the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Mr. Grenier and I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for a very thorough presentation.

Mr. Ménard followed by Mr. Johnston.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You are right in saying that it was a very clear and lucid presentation. You have expressed a number of concerns and I would like to tell you that we are considering tabling an amendment regarding, especially, the Canada Labour Relations Board and the situation that may arise if it can no longer hear parties and provide them with time to speak to each other in order to reach some type of mediation or reconciliation, that is if parties no longer had the power to be heard.

However, you are inviting this committee to be extremely vigilant and to ensure that at least if parties request it they be able to engage in oral communication. I think that viewpoint should definitely be considered by some members of this committee. I think that it is very very clear.

Your second observation has to do with the unit empowered to take a vote or with the people who should vote. It should not necessarily be the unit but the union, given that you can be a member of one without necessarily being a member of the other. Your fear is that the unions' representational capacity could be undermined. Have I correctly understood your viewpoint?

[English]

Ms Rutherford: I'm going to turn the answering of this question over to Mr. Grenier.

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Grenier (Bargaining Agent, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): Thank you, Susan. Yes, it is a problem. As we said in our brief, the Canada Labour Code and the legislation already provides for a balance of power between the parties. This is the Rand formula, that democratically provides employees with the choice to belong or not belong to the union. It is a fundamental choice and we do not see why that choice would be challenged today. It has worked for years and years.

The Sims Commission has stated that this broadens democracy. We believe that it does exactly the opposite. In a democracy, everyone has the choice of belonging to a union or not belonging, but if you choose not to belong, then you cannot have the same benefits as those who do belong. That's impossible.

Therefore, if an employee decides not to belong to a union, then he does not have the right to attend union activities and to participate in the election of union representatives. It works like a political party does. If I'm not a member of a political party, then I cannot vote for a party leader. That's a fundamental part of this system.

Mr. Ménard: If I've understood correctly, what you really want - and I believe that you're making the same request as the Public Service Alliance of Canada - is that your members be subject to the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Grenier: Exactly. We've always maintained, for the reasons stated, that the Canada Labour Code is by far superior. I know what I'm talking about, because I have worked with the Canada Labour Code in the public service for a long time.

Mr. Ménard: So you believe that the Canada Labour Code is superior to the Labour Relations Act, which does not mean that one minister is superior to another. I know that you will not express a view on that, but what is very clear to the committee is that you would like to be completely subject to the code, with no ambiguity.

.1650

You do not want there to be a reference to essential services. This is a rather interesting point of view because several witnesses, especially those from the private sector, told us that they did not understand why the bill did not distinguish between private and public essential services, and you, even though you represent the public sector, do not want the bill to refer to essential services because there already is an agreement. By mutual consent, the maintenance of services during the negotiation process is agreed upon without the legislator having to specifically refer to that in the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Grenier: Yes.

Mr. Ménard: He did not present a brief. He should at least be able to speak now.

Mr. Grenier: At Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and in hospitals in the Far North, we negotiated essential services with the employer. The problem is that when the government legislates in this area and makes us provide essential services, it becomes extremely complicated.

I would just like to mention - and this is not in our brief - that under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, there are essential services that are left completely up to the employer, who can decide how many people will be declared to be essential, and that could be up to 112%.

However, a change was made. I say this in case the legislators decided to adopt provisions on essential services. Under the new Labour Relations Act, a provision has been included under which employees who must work to provide essential services will continue to be paid and to pay their contributions - which is currently missing in the bill.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Johnston: Maybe you could enlighten me on your first point, the right to be heard. You suggest that proposed section 16.1 - and I read this through in the clause-by-clause and wondered about it myself - should be modified to require the board to conduct an oral hearing at the request of a party. So either party could request an oral hearing. Would you like to enlarge on your thoughts on that?

Ms Rutherford: The concern we're expressing with the current wording of proposed section 16.1 is that in the worst-case scenario, you could end up with the board saying they are not going to hear you. I don't think that's the intent of what you're trying to do with these amendments to the Canada Labour Code. What I think you are trying to do is create a progressive and positive atmosphere in which negotiating can take place.

We're saying that if there is reasonable justification for a party to be heard, then the legislation should contain a provision that they have to be heard. And it doesn't matter which party.

Do you want to elaborate on that, Luc?

Mr. Grenier: I would just say that it is a fundamental right under a democratic system to be heard in a case. Secondly, there is the old saying that it is pretty difficult to cross-examine a piece of paper.

Mr. Johnston: From reading that proposed section in clause-by-clause analysis of the bill, it appeared to me that the board would at least have the discretion as to whether to make a judgment based on the submissions they had or whether they felt it necessary to have an oral hearing prior to making a judgment.

I guess you're saying that you don't want to see that part of the bill changed at all. You want an oral hearing preceding every case that the board hears.

.1655

Ms Rutherford: No, I don't think that is what we're saying at all. What we're saying is that the way it's worded right now is all well and good in a great world - in a perfect-theory world where everything works the way it's supposed to. That, as we all know, does not always happen. What we're saying is that if you include that amendment to contain that where a party has requested an oral hearing and there is reasonable justification for that request, an oral hearing should be held or must be held to take into consideration what happens if you end up in a worst-case scenario.

Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We'll go to the Liberal side - one question each for Mr. McCormick and Mr. Nault.

Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Your presentation included very many interesting and valid positions that our committee does need to hear. I'm sure you'll make sure we hear them now, and perhaps some more of them in the future.

I understand the task force did not address the issue of applying the Canada Labour Relations Board to the federal public sector, and yet it noted the potential benefits of consolidating federal labour boards. It seems that most certainly there could be value in doing this. There could be efficiencies gained.

I want to ask a very simple question that I probably should know - for you to put on the record or for me to learn. Have you had direct communications with the Minister of Labour on this? I understood he was open to looking at whatever was put on the table.

Ms Rutherford: I'm not quite sure whether we've made a presentation to the Minister of Labour. However, we did present a brief on Bill C-60, which is the enabling legislation for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and we covered the same detail in that act that we're covering with you here this afternoon.

Mr. McCormick: I realize that you are now making a presentation to the minister here. I just wanted to dig a little further on your behalf.

That's all for now, for me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the witnesses about this voting by non-members, in 87(3). Would it be possible for you to tell us, statistically, how many non-members there are in a bargaining unit, as it relates to this particular issue?

That's one question. If you don't have it, I'd be interested to find out what the percentage is. From my experience in the railway unions, very few were non-members. They all seemed to be in the bargaining unit, in the sense of being a member, because they were paying dues, so they tended to participate.

I am also of the understanding that pretty well all provincial jurisdictions contain this particular clause that suggests that when there is a secret ballot, non-voting members have a right to vote as part of the bargaining unit. The only exception to that is Quebec.

Why would you be opposed to that? It doesn't seem to be too difficult to do for one major reason. You already know who the members are because you're taking dues from them. The dues are coming off through the cheques, are they not?

Mr. Grenier: No. That's exactly the problem that we mentioned. Employers are not obliged, under the Privacy Act, to give us addresses of those random people, and they don't.

Mr. Nault: How do they do it provincially, then?

Mr. Grenier: I couldn't answer that. I really don't know.

Mr. Nault: Well, they are doing it.

Mr. Grenier: It is probably easier when you deal with a small employer that is at the same location. When you start dealing with employers that are located across the country, it is much more difficult. That is one of the problems that is inherent in this. I don't know how they would fix it, because we simply don't have the addresses of those people.

Mr. Nault: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly think we should follow this up by getting information from the department and from other employers in the federal and provincial jurisdictions, to see how they do it. I would be very interested in knowing how that's done.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much.

Please go ahead, Ms Rutherford.

.1700

Ms Rutherford: I need to clarify that the Professional Institute only represents employees provincially in New Brunswick and Manitoba. Those are the only two provinces where we were involved with the provincial legislation.

I don't believe your first question was answered. Statistically we don't have the answer off the top of our heads. Are you asking us to provide those statistics to you?

Mr. Nault: If it is possible, I'd like to know.

My second question really was that if in theory it can be done by unions in the provincial labour codes, what makes us think we can't do it in the federal labour code? That was the significance of the question, not that you don't have very many members on the provincial scene. I'm just saying that in other codes in the country, they're doing it now. So the problem you're relating to us, that you can't get the names and addresses so that they can get a ballot, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Ms Rutherford: If they're Rand members, we are not entitled to identify any information about those employees unless the employer will provide it voluntarily or the people who are Rand members will allow that information to be communicated to us. Other than that, we do not have access to it.

The other thing I think you have to remember is that we currently operate under a Rand formula that is working very well. I think if you check the provincial legislation, you are going to find that it is a Rand formula that's similar to the federal Rand formula. With this legislation you are going to upset the balance of the Rand formula - that's what we're saying to you.

The Chairman: Ms Rutherford and Mr. Grenier, thank you very much. We'll follow up on those issues raised by Mr. Nault.

Thank you again for appearing and also for giving up your spot.

The next presentation will be made by the Canadian Labour Congress.

First of all, let me welcome you. We have the pleasure of having with us, from the Canadian Labour Congress, Ms Nancy Riche and Murray Randall. I'm sure they'll introduce their other colleagues.

.1705

You probably know how parliamentary standing committees function. You have approximately 10 to 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by a question and answer session.

Welcome. You may begin.

Ms Nancy Riche (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you very much. Let me first introduce who's with me, and I don't think it will surprise you where they're coming from.

Richard Balnis is a researcher with CUPE, the airline division. John Amato is a business agent with CAW, airline division, and a former passenger agent with Canadian Airlines. Hank Gauthier is the vice-president of organizing for CEP, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers - you know, the big merger.

Our presentation will vary slightly from what we had intended up until 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, so it's very important that we read into the record the statement we have distributed.

It won't surprise any of the members of the committee to know how terribly surprised and shocked we were yesterday with Minister Gagliano's intervention into the Canadian process with workers, so it's important we read this. We were incredibly surprised.

I'm sure you've heard around this table about the consensus process and the consultation work we did with the labour department officials, with FETCO and with the affiliates of the Canadian Labour Congress that have members who work in sectors in federal jurisdiction.

We wouldn't have come here to say how wonderful you all were, but it would have been a lot more positive and certainly more pleasant than it's turned out to be. I would like to read this and then I'll do an overview of the brief.

The past several governments have catered to the corporate agenda through privatization, contracting out, deregulation and free trade, causing widespread unemployment. The Canada Labour Code is one of the last protections for working people in its recognition of free collective bargaining.

We are outraged by the unprecedented action of the Minister of Labour taken yesterday in the House of Commons with respect to the CAW and the situation at Canadian Airlines International.

Minister Gagliano invoked section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to directly interfere with the internal operations of a legally constituted trade union. By so doing, he has put a pall over the positive relationships labour has had with the minister, but more importantly, he has sullied the consultation and consensus process undertaken by CLC, FETCO and the federal government in amending part I of the Canada Labour Code. Specifically, the CLC and FETCO agreed that the resolution of labour relations issues should be left in the hands of the workplace parties rather than to third-party intervention.

This action has the potential of poisoning the relationship between the minister and the Canadian labour movement, a situation we do not welcome or want. We are therefore calling upon this committee to recommend that section 107 be deleted. No future Minister of Labour should have this authority; no future Minister of Labour should want it.

We can get back to that after as well, if you want. I'll try to do the brief. It's a lengthy brief, and I don't intend to read it. I may miss things as I go through, but you can ask questions on it.

The Chairman: Do you want to read the names of the signatories right into the record?

Ms Riche: If you like, okay. It's respectfully submitted by Bob White, president of the Canadian Labour Congress; Dick Martin, secretary-treasurer; and Jean Claude Parrot and me, Nancy Riche, executive vice-presidents.

Because we have little time, we can get back to it. You may want to question John and Richard particularly.

I'm sure you've already heard about the sense of somewhat satisfaction in the work we were able to do following the appointment of the Sims task force and the consultation process. Sims, the chair, basically said to FETCO and the CLC that if we did reach consensus, he would look very seriously at making those consensus items recommendations.

At the very first meeting, the employers and the unions decided we really should try to focus, because Sims and most people felt the Labour Code was working fairly well and didn't really need this massive, comprehensive review.

.1710

However, in the fall of 1994 the Minister of Human Resources Development, Minister Axworthy, had already approached labour and the employers to look at a recomposition of the CLRB and to look at something in the area of replacement workers. So we'd already been into the discussion, still not looking at a comprehensive review. Then the next Minister of Labour, Madam Robillard, appointed the Sims task force.

So after our first meeting, both sides agreed there were certain areas we should focus on and others would follow. We decided without discussion, I think, that we would try to reach consensus and we wouldn't spend a lot of time where we couldn't.

We had a very big committee, with a large number of CLC affiliates and a large number of members of FETCO, throughout the whole process, and we didn't have a lot of time. So we didn't spend a lot of time on areas where we had some sense that we might not get consensus.

We put forward four areas from the labour movement: the CLRB, successor rights, certification procedure, and replacement workers - anti-scab.

The CLRB discussions were by far the most fruitful. We believe having a representational board is the way to go and have felt that way for a long time, so we are very pleased to see the bill reflects this. However, we have some small concerns.

We had a lot of discussion as to who should participate in the selection of the chairs, the vice-chairs and the members of the board. It was felt very strongly by both sides and by Sims, and we believed it would be in the bill, that labour would submit a list we would be happy with for the labour members and the employers would submit their list, and then the minister would select from the lists. We also thought we would participate, at least through some sort of consultation process, in the appointment of neutrals, the chairs and vice-chairs. That did not come out in the bill.

The bill was silent in both cases and suggests the minister may consult, which means, of course, he may not. I would be surprised if he didn't, because even now, when it's non-representational, we do hear from him, but we felt that with the consensus, that actually should be in.

The other thing that's important to note is the task force supported the recommendation of equal numbers of members, but it said in the bill the appointment of members who represent employees, not necessarily labour or unions and employers. I can imagine having that debate at part III of the code, but part I is for unionized workplaces. So we would like to see that fairly represent who we're suggesting it represent, and that's labour.

We did recommend - and again, there was a lengthy discussion - that the appointees to the board should have extensive experience in labour relations. That only comes up with chairs and vice-chairs and does not mention the members of the board.

We had a lengthy discussion on equity of representation on the board, particularly affirmative action as it reflects women. This did not come in. We identified language and equity as important, and it's silent. When we've questioned it since, we've been basically told that of course the government would look at that and of course that's a position of the government. Well, if it's a position, there's really no reason it shouldn't be put in. It could make the bill and the law much richer.

The consensus recommended that appointments should be on a staggered basis, and the bill is silent on that.

The consensus recommended that provision should be made in the statute requiring an employer to grant a leave of absence. Again, there was lengthy discussion on this, partly because we end up getting retirees in some cases. We thought, why not have someone who's actually in the industrial relations field on either side, management or labour, and make sure they could have a leave in order to do so?

In agreement with the FETCO brief, we'd like to repeat the consensus recommended that the chairs and vice-chairs should be appointed on a full-time basis and located in the national capital region. The task force recommended that the provision be made for the appointment of part-time vice-chairs with no residence required, as does the bill.

.1715

Finally, the consensus made several recommendations in the area of production of documents without a formal hearing and a pre-hearing process prior to formal hearings. The task force basically supported these ideas, but the bill does not quite capture them, particularly with respect to relevancy of documents and representation from parties.

In summary of the above points, we believe the committee should consider amendments that would more completely reflect the labour-management consensus, as well as the task force recommendations. These are not major and could probably easily be dealt with in amendments that could be supported.

One other proposed change to Division II of the code causes us some concern. Clause 7 contains proposed section 18.1, and it is apparently an attempt to clarify and elaborate upon the board's powers. We fear the bill goes too far in the direction of allowing employers to interfere with the right of workers to choose their own bargaining representative and in allowing the board to potentially abuse collective bargaining. We believe the committee should scrutinize this new section with an eye to its potential conflict with the preamble to part I and section 8, ``basic freedoms''.

You've probably heard that replacement workers are a pretty big issue for the Canadian labour movement. This was one of the areas that we didn't spend a lot of time on with FETCO. I think we did about thirty minutes and we knew there would not be an agreement. In fact, as we lobbied and pushed throughout the Sims task force, we kept constantly getting back, ``Nobody's coming up with...'', ``I can't get either side...'', or ``You're too polarized''. So once again, we would like to make the case for banning replacement workers.

Much of the argument by those who are opposed to replacement workers generally comes up around economic issues. We think the experience of anti-scab or non-replacement worker legislation in Quebec, and for a short time in Ontario and British Columbia, does not hold these arguments up to any great scrutiny whatsoever. In fact, when Bill 40 was law in Ontario, the period following the implementation of this bill was characterized by few work stoppages, moderate trade union demands at the bargaining table, and picket line peace. Furthermore, in the full year following the passage of Bill 40, Ontario's economic growth and GDP was 5.5%, the highest in the G-7. By the end of 1994, nearly 170,000 had been created. Today, thanks to Bill 7 and its anti-scab repeal, the use of replacement workers is on the upswing while labour-management relations head in the opposite direction.

You don't have to look very far from this building to see the use of scabs. In fact, I think I should say that I strongly believe the government is complicit in supporting anti-scabs by making use of the scabs in the Bradson workers strike to actually provide security to federal government buildings.

The province with the longest experience with an anti-scab provision is Quebec. There, the evidence does not support bargaining power imbalance, as is reflected in wage settlement. In the seventeen years following the introduction of anti-scab provisions, increases in basic wage rates in collective agreements in Quebec were higher than the Canadian average in only six years. It is perhaps not surprising that the task force member from Quebec, Rodrigue Blouin, having witnessed first-hand the province's experience with anti-scab legislation, was the one who issued an eloquent minority report advocating prohibition.

Subclause 42(2) of Bill C-66 will add a new subsection, 94(2.1), which would revolve around the phrase, ``for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity''. No one knows how this will be interpreted by the board, no matter what the Chamber of Commerce wants to tell you. It has yet to be tested. The bill is not in effect. There has been no unfair labour practice presented in the case of replacement workers. I like to make a broad interpretation, however, but I have no idea if the board would agree with me. The writers of the bill don't either.

I would like to suggest that I would test it on the basis of anybody working in a job of a member of the bargaining unit. I would suggest that this undermines the representational capacity of the bargaining unit. However, we're told by everybody who had anything to do with it that this was not the interpretation. We'll see what the board says. If it had been involved, it probably would have been written differently.

.1720

We can talk about the concern - and you may want to - that the use of scabs does prolong and does make for more bitter strikes. I don't think anybody can disagree. It probably means that we do have more strikes, and certainly more lockouts. Most of the disputes going on in this city right now, in fact - all under provincial jurisdiction, I should add - are lockouts and are using scabs. The scabs have been in place since before the lockout is even called. In the current Air Ontario dispute under federal jurisdiction, the minute the bargaining unit advised the employer of the strike vote, the advertisement was put in the paper to hire the scabs.

This is not just about maintaining the economy of the company. When there is no effort to get back to the bargaining table after a strike vote, but there is to immediately go to hire replacement workers, it goes much further than just keeping the company going. It does lead to increased picket line confrontation and violence, less free and meaningful collective bargaining, and problems that render resolution of the dispute more difficult. So we again appeal to the committee to look at this, to particularly read the Blouin minority report that's included in the body of the Sims task force report.

On the certification procedure, one of our problems was long delays. We think the bill has started to deal with that. Three proposed sections and subsections in the bill will hopefully have a positive impact in this regard: 14(3), single member panels, which will speed up the process - I'm on page 6; 14.2(2), time limits for panel decisions, which will also speed things up; and 99.1, automatic certification. With respect to 99.1, we believe that the board, on finding an unfair labour practice that amounts to employer interference with the ability to ascertain the wishes of the employees, should be empowered to certify a trade union without reason or expectation.

We must add, as we continue to do so, that the condition for people to pay $5 to sign a card is absurd. There is absolutely no rational argument for why that's there. Why it even stayed in is beyond me, but we know the history of this. It dates back to the Eaton's organizing drive in the 1940s. Nobody had to pay any money until the Eaton's organizing drive. People were signed up and a majority were ready to join a union when Eaton's was able to lobby the government to pass a law that would require them - people who had already agreed - to pay a dollar. The organizers then had to go back, and the virtue of trying to sign them up again while also trying to get a dollar from them meant of course that the organizing drive was lost. What it's doing there now is beyond me. It suggests that somehow or another, workers who sign a card must prove their integrity by giving $5.

This may not seem like a major point, but in the current economy and with the current state of the labour force, a lot of people who are signing up actually can't even afford $5. The newest members of unions are the very lowest paid in our country. That's why they're joining unions. They're mostly at minimum wage.

On successor rights, we would have liked to have seen something stronger. We think the bill falls short when it only suggests that the wages, the remuneration, stay the same.

There are a number of other issues, and because I tend to talk and editorialize a lot, I will work very hard to be brief.

Beyond the scope of the four priorities that I just mentioned, there are features of Bill C-66 that have our unqualified support. I think it's important that we note that, because it's very rare that I come before a parliamentary committee and can support anything. It's kind of nice to do it. But there are others that cause us concern, and they are matters that we believe should be addressed.

In the first category, under proposed section 36.1, Just cause requirement, and proposed subsection 67(6), Powers of arbitrator where conditions of 89(1)(a) to (d) have been met, these sections reflect the labour-management consensus. Proposed subsection 29(1.1), which covers employees not in a bargaining unit if hired or assigned after notice to bargain is given when the unit is on strike or locked out, refers to replacement workers. Proposed section 70.1, which sees the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service staying as a separate component, reflects the consensus, as does single-stage conciliation. We had a lot of discussion on this. People want to get on with the bargaining. They don't want it delayed; they don't want it going through a bunch of stages. They want to be able to pick the stage, deal with it, and either settle it, strike, lock out, or whatever the end of it is.

.1725

We support the two-year duration of a first collective agreement, and we obviously support the reinstatement of employees after a strike or lockout. This reflects the labour-management consensus, and if anybody is here from Alberta, you'll remember the incredible problems after the Gainers strike in hiring the scabs. You're not as old as I am and you're not from Newfoundland, but you may remember the Eastern Provincial Airways strike that went on for three years. We actually had to have a board ruling. Once the strike was settled, the replacement workers were flying in the cab with the captains and first officers, which caused an incredible safety problem, and they had to take it to the CLRB. So this makes perfect sense.

We do support the communication with off-site workers, and we think it reflects the new emerging workforce. A lot of people in our country no longer go to plants or offices - some by choice and some not by choice - and are actually working out of their homes. We believe that's a shift in the workplace, and as just another workplace, unions should have access to them.

The category of features that concerns us.... The certification of longshoring and other industries - we don't know what the words ``actively engaged'' mean, but I suspect the longshore people spoke to this, this morning. On Review of bargaining units, under proposed section 45, application by the employer could allow unwarranted management intrusion into worker unions.

Strike/lockout notice - there should be no notice requirement. We believe that after people have gone through the bargaining process, have gone through one of the stages of conciliation, they should then be in a position to strike. If they pick the stage of a board, there are time limits on all of this.

We're concerned that where there is a movable work station, as in a ship, if they give 72 hours' notice, there may not be anyone to strike at the time it happens, which of course doesn't make sense in a law that obviously supports a worker's right to strike.

The secret ballot strike vote raises the possibility of multiple strike votes being required under the bill, if you don't go in 60 days. When we questioned this, we were told that some unions sit on a strike vote for two years. I find that rather unusual. It seems to me that if you have a strike vote and you've not gone out in 60 days, you're probably going to go back to the table. What are you hanging around for? Once you want to go, you might as well go. Having to do another vote every 60 days doesn't make a lot of sense.

On proposed subsection 87.3(4), Application to have vote declared invalid, this may be interpretation. In the bill, in its effort to stay balanced - if there's an association, the employer must have a vote on a lockout and the workers must have a secret vote on a strike. It looks as if it could be interpreted that the employer could question the secret strike vote. That may be a question of interpretation, so we'd like to get that clarified. I want the opportunity to question the secret lockout vote by the employer's association. I want to find out what room they do this in when they do this. If this means that either side could question the validity of the secret vote, then I can guarantee you we'll be checking it. We may need some clarification.

Maintenance of activities - this is a very important piece of the bill, I believe. I think what has been done with it is very important and it speaks to the spirit of respect for both parties in the collective bargaining process. We strongly support giving the parties the opportunity to enter into an agreement with respect to compliance. It is therefore consistent for us to also believe that any review of an order under proposed section 87 should, in the first instance, be referred to the parties.

This was the piece of the bill that I was so pleased with until I got down to the eighth paragraph. It basically says the parties will decide which activities should be maintained during a strike. There are lots of precedents for this in Canada, and in fact unions and employers can actually come to agreements - health care workers, emergency services, lab technicians. All of this has been done.

It says that if the parties can't agree, it goes to the board. We accept that. If the parties can't come together on it, let the board make a decision on the maintenance of activities.

.1730

Having done all that, then we see a piece that says if the minister is not pleased or if either of the parties doesn't like the agreement, we can take it to the board. I know it says ``in major circumstances'' and all that sort of stuff, but I believe that if there's a problem with either of the parties involved, it should go back to the two parties again. That's very important.

It's also very important, I think, for the continuing relationship. It speaks to the integrity of both, and I think it makes a lot of difference for the general public to see this kind of thing. I have faith that both parties can do it. We don't need to have it double-checked and for the board to come in again.

The third category is what we believe is missing from the bill. I don't know how many of you were around when Harvie Andre was here, but we did three years of consultation on part III, minimum standards. We had gone through all the processes. Justice had written the amendments and the Minister of Labour was ready to go to the House when Minister Andre decided he wanted to stick it to the postal workers. So he heard about this obscure piece in the legislation in Ontario that the minister could come in and command a vote. I know this to be true - he forced the Minister of Labour - if he didn't get this piece in under part I, we would not get part III amendments. We lobbied strongly against it then and we continue to strongly oppose it. Too bad we didn't look at section 107 during the consultations. We might have done something about that.

The repeal of the Public Service Staff Relations Act - you just had PIPS before you. For some reason or other, in many places we've decided that public sector workers are somehow different from private sector workers. We think everybody should be covered under the same piece of legislation.

To conclude, at the first meeting of labour and management on the task force, Sims described the following three beliefs that he said the task force members shared: the current code basically continues to serve its constituency well, emphasizing stability; pension-like changes to the code are neither necessary nor desirable - one has only to look at this province; and consensus between the parties provides the best basis for decision-making.

The CLC subsequently asked the task force to produce a report that philosophically embraced the reality and worth of trade unions, respected and built upon any consensus reached by labour and management, and was fair. The task force report basically delivered on the above beliefs and our requests, with the notable exception of the replacement worker issue. Likewise, Bill C-66 basically stays the task force's pragmatic course.

In this submission we have supported certain parts of the bill and made suggestions for improvement of others. A lot of time and energy has been invested in the process leading to this bill. We urge committee members to respect that process by improving the bill, where possible, in an expeditious manner. It would be a shame to see our efforts and those of many others thwarted by an election call that left the bill to die on the order paper.

The document therefore is respectfully submitted by the officers of the Congress - Robert White, Dick Martin, Jean-Claude Parrott and Nancy Riche - on behalf of all CLC affiliates that have members in the federal jurisdiction.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I think you have all the answers here.

We're going to limit ourselves to five-minute rounds, starting with the Bloc, followed by the Reform Party, and Mr. Nault from the Liberals.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde (Mercier): Thank you very much for a brief that was very comprehensive, well researched and that will certainly be very useful to us when we begin our clause-by-clause study of the bill. As you know, the government wants us to begin this next Monday.

.1735

You have four priorities. These four priorities are what are most important to you.

I'm absolutely comfortable with these priorities. I must say that I was especially pleased that you emphasized the importance of representation on the Board. That was the first question I put to the Minister, because I felt that the Board was being said to be representative when in reality, the conditions required to make it representative did not exist.

We are aware of the difficulties concerning replacement workers but we hope to convince the government to take on its responsibilities.

We heard little about the certification procedure during our hearings, nor about successor obligations. As the chairman said, it is all there, but for this committee's purposes could you please repeat the main reasons in favour of these changes?

[English]

Mr. Murray Randall (Senior Researcher, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress): Are you referring to the certification procedure or the successor rights?

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, and the other one - your fourth priority.

[Translation]

Mr. Henri Gauthier (Vice-President, Recruitment, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada): With respect to the certification procedure, we are in favour of access to more information about employees who work at home or in some decentralized fashion. This new type of technology also affects workers and unions and their ability to unionize employees. Therefore we are in favour of this.

Ms Lalonde: Employers have told us several times that it made no sense that the address be provided, even the Internet address, because that could jeopardize their safety. What is your answer to that?

Mr. Gauthier: With respect to employees' safety or privacy, I do not believe that it is up to the employers to be the keepers of the faith. First, usually employers do this, when they need to do electronic monitoring within the workplace. At that point they do not seem to be interested in defending their employees' privacy at work. They do the same thing for drug screening. Once again, they are intruding on their employees' privacy. We know that from time to time private detectives are hired to knock on employees' doors, because there are employers who do not want their employees to smoke. When they do that, how do they feel about their own employees' privacy? They do not have a reputation for defending employees' privacy at work or outside work.

[English]

Ms Riche: I think it's also important that the union doesn't have all kinds of powers. The union cannot just walk in and demand a list. This goes to the board, which may in fact allow the list. The board will take into consideration the privacy of the people. I think there's been an incredible overreaction, as if a trade union can walk into the office of the president and say, ``Under the law you must give us the names and addresses''. That is not the case. The union has to apply.

It puts those people who work at home, particularly those who have no choice - it gives them their workplace and brings them under the labour code, just as with anybody in an auto plant. It treats them equally as workers. So it's not as open as some employers want to depict it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gauthier: May I expand on the employer's right to speak when applications for certification are made, during union recruitment campaigns?

.1740

I believe that section 42(1) of Bill C-66 refers to this. I mentioned this to Mr. Gagliano, in Regina, when I was speaking on behalf of our union. I told him at that time that perhaps all that should be in the Code with respect to what an employer can say about a union is simply this: we do not like unions and we don't want any. I would give them the right to say that. Besides that, I would not give them anything, because the Code has been developed to encourage access to unions and not to provide a platform for the employer regarding the right to freedom of speech.

Ms Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, we haven't heard anything about the obligations of the negotiator, but I am sure that your colleagues would be just as interested in that.

[English]

The Chairman: We're over our time limit, but go ahead.

Ms Riche: Basically, what we have under the bill is that the contractor bidding must pay the same remuneration.

We would have wanted more. In fact, we would have wanted the collective bargaining agreement, the contract, to stay in place so that in the tendering process the members would actually maintain their union and move with their collective agreement and all benefits in place. This is very minimalist in its successor rights, and we would have wanted it to be much stronger.

Mr. Johnston: Thank you for a very comprehensive presentation. It was so much so that it doesn't leave me much room for questioning.

Ms Riche: You agree with it all too, I suspect?

Mr. Johnston: But I did notice that you found some problem with the fact that the chairman wasn't required to live in the capital region. Could you just explain that to us?

Ms Riche: The chair is required to live in it.

Mr. Johnston: Then the vice-chairs aren't required to live in the capital region.

Ms Riche: Yes, the vice-chairs.

As I remember the discussion - others may want to jump in on this - it was partly to maintain the jurisprudence in one place. It is a national code, a national law, and we want to maintain the equality instead of having it as a regional piece.

The members, however, will reside in the region. We'll have part-time members who will reside in the region who will bring a regional aspect to it, but we felt the board should all be together. We call the chairs and vice-chairs the ``neutrals''.

I don't think we'll ask for a filibuster if we don't get that.

Mr. Johnston: As I say, your report, your submission, is very comprehensive. I think that as I went along, I had some questions, but they were subsequently answered.

Ms Riche: I came here just for you.

Mr. Johnston: Did you? I'm really flattered.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms Riche: So you support our position on replacement workers?

Mr. Johnston: No, I'm afraid I don't.

Ms Riche: I just thought I'd ask for the record.

Mr. Johnston: You didn't have to come all this way to find that out, though.

Ms Riche: I could have called you or used your voice mail?

The Chairman: He's the most left-leaning Reformer.

Ms Riche: That should put him about where the Liberals are currently, right?

A voice: They're very popular Canadians.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: I wanted to deal with two issues. You didn't touch on one of these in your brief. It relates to the services to grain vessels. I would be very interested in the CLC's position on that. Unless I missed it somewhere in the presentation, you didn't touch on it. I'd like to know what your position is on that, to start with.

The other question I was interested in was of course the issue of the 60 days for a secret ballot strike vote. As you were at the meetings that took place between the department and the employers and employees, can you give me a sense of how that all evolved? I'm kind of interested in where the 60 days came from. That's one question.

Ms Riche: From the department.

Mr. Nault: From the department?

Ms Riche: That wasn't discussed. It wasn't part of - No, not everything in here came from a consensus in the consultation.

.1745

Mr. Nault: So that wasn't discussed in any fashion?

Ms Riche: No.

Mr. Nault: In the Sims report?

Ms Riche: I can't remember it. We certainly didn't have it with the employers.

But remember, in fairness, we didn't set out to discuss everything that was going to end up being part of it. This wasn't the government coming with a number of amendments that we went through. We set our agenda, and that wasn't part of it.

The Chairman: You're saying that it might have been discussed, but you don't remember?

Ms Riche: It wasn't in the consultations when we met with the employers and unions.

The Chairman: It ended up in Sims, but not as a result of discussions.

Ms Riche: It ended up in Sims, but it wasn't in the consensus discussion.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms Riche: Whether it was discussed at Sims -

Mr. Nault: You can ask questions, I don't mind, but when I'm done, then you can start. I know that I asked very interesting questions, and now you're waking up. Good.

I wanted to know about the 72-hour clause. That only refers in essence to the ships. Is there any other particular industry you can think of in which that would have an impact, or is that very specific to those unions and the ports?

Ms Riche: Certainly that's the affiliate that's expressing the concern to us.

Mr. Nault: But you can't think of any other particular area in which 72 hours would have an effect? It's 24 hours now, right? Is it not in the code? Is there nothing in the code?

A voice: It's zero.

Ms Riche: I don't think there's anything in the code.

Mr. Nault: There's zero in the code.

Ms Riche: Mind you, they've had 18 months of conciliation at every stage. There was no provision for a secret ballot in the current act. That's fine. Most of our affiliates have that in their constitution anyway. But there was actually no provision to take a vote for a strike under the Canada Labour Code. The 60 days and the 72 hours - in terms of the consensus building they were not part of the discussion.

Mr. Nault: Okay. It's on page 106 of Mr. Sims's report.

Ms Riche: Of Sims.

Mr. Nault: Let me see -

Ms Riche: It's important to say that we did not have our discussions based on what Sims was saying.

Mr. Nault: Right.

Ms Riche: We were just part of Sims. We only made a presentation to Sims. He said he would put more faith in the consensus stuff. We didn't do every single piece that he did.

Mr. Nault: Yes, and I sort of got the drift when I listened to some of the employer groups - It seemed to me that they cherry-picked. Whenever they felt there was an area they didn't like, they said Sims said this or Sims said that.

This is what I was trying to get from them. There was a Sims report, and there was a lot of other discussion that took place, but in the end, a consensus group was put together.

Ms Riche: No. It wasn't in the end.

Mr. Nault: No? Was that at the beginning, or where was it?

Ms Riche: It was sort of part of Sims. Sims requested this. He really felt strongly that he wanted to hear from both sides together. We could have all presented briefs to Sims and he could have come out with whatever. He asked for this to be a piece of his consultation.

In our very first meeting with him, we basically said we had some priority items. We said this was what we wanted to deal with. The employers had some and we had some. We did it. We also appeared before Sims separately as the CLC. Our affiliates appeared before Sims.

All of that came together, and he did his report. But we weren't participants in his report, if you like; there were only presenters.

Mr. Nault: I'm trying to get a sense of this whole issue of 60 days. That of course stems from some provincial labour codes. It also stems from the idea that a lot of people like deadline bargaining.

I hate to bring up Mr. Hargrove, because of course that will give you an entry into what you want to talk about, but my point is that Mr. Hargrove is famous for deadline bargaining.

Now this 60 days creates that kind of mechanism in the federal jurisdiction. So I'm curious as to why you would be opposed to it when in fact that's exactly the kind of scenario it would create in the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Randall: I think you have to appreciate the congress's position. Working with FETCO and the Sims task force, we were informed by representatives from many of our affiliates that have membership in the federal jurisdiction. The CAW is one of those affiliates, but certainly there were several others, from the railway industry and others, that were in the federal jurisdiction.

.1750

If I read you right, you were trying to suggest that somehow this was an import from the CAW's experience in provincial jurisdiction. I can assure you that this is not the case. There were several unions involved in the process in our own internal working group, far beyond the CAW.

Mr. Nault: I wasn't getting at that. I was saying that in the provincial jurisdictions, there are many who believe the process works better when you have deadline bargaining. The problem with our federal jurisdiction is that it's sort of like a walk through the park: it takes too long. The whole objective with these changes was to tighten it up, and the 60 days was part of that.

I'm trying to get a sense as to why, on the one hand, you're in favour of tightening it up, but you don't want the 60 days. Is it because it's too short, it will change the dynamics too much, or it's too restrictive? I'm just trying to get a feel for how that works.

Ms Riche: There are two things. One is having to do the vote again. That's the major thing. If you don't go out, you have to do the vote all over again.

As for most of our affiliates, if there's a major change in the offer, they would do the vote again. They always do the vote again, particularly if you vote for a strike. They're going to go back for a ratification vote.

What happens if you take your strike vote, then 58 days down the road you've got some movement at the table? You go in and meet for five days, but nothing happens. You've got to take the strike vote again. If things ends up exactly the same as they were 60 days ago, why would you want to take the strike vote again? That's the position.

Mr. Nault: Okay.

Ms Riche: But you asked the question about the grain.

Mr. Nault: Yes. I wanted to get to that next. It's fairly silent, unless I missed it in -

Ms Riche: Do we have it in there?

Mr. Nault: It's not in there.

Ms Riche: I'm sure the longshore group said this morning that they have, on all occasions, agreed to move the grain.

I think it's really important. I'm not greatly familiar with the docks and longshore issues, but I am somewhat. I think one of the reasons they agreed to move the grain is the incredible lobby in this country by their employers. Every time there's a longshore strike, they're legislated back to work so the grain can get moving. Even members of the party I support have often supported that position, but I haven't been too pleased about that.

That has clearly been the position. The lobby effort is tremendous. In fact, I'm sure the longshore people have told you that they cannot actually carry on a substantial strike. Every single time, the longshore people have agreed to move the grain. We support proposed section 87.7, the position of the longshore people.

Mr. Nault: In the consensus that was arrived at to deal with that, was there not a fear in the CLC or the unions involved that this was a first step toward what some of the other industries are saying, which was, why not us; why not coal; why not lumber?

Ms Riche: No.

Mr. Nault: Not at all?

Ms Riche: It wasn't part of the consensus, no.

Mr. Nault: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for a very thoughtful presentation. It was quite comprehensive. You covered some very important areas, and I'm sure we'll be using this very important material to better the bill.

Ms Riche: And we're available, of course, when you're doing clause-by-clause. If there's any stuff we can give you, we'd be happy to do so.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that I have another engagement, so I have to leave.

The Chairman: That's fine. It's nice to have you this afternoon and this morning. You're a great Reform representative.

Mr. Johnston: Great. It has been a slice.

The Chairman: We're just going to take a break, then we'll be right back.

.1754

.1803

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we're back. We welcome, from the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Winsor. We also welcome Ms Duke from Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that correct? Okay.

As you probably know by now, you have 30 minutes for your presentation. You can split it up into 10 to 15 minutes for your presentations followed by 10 to 15 minutes of questions from the members of Parliament.

On behalf of the committee, I certainly would like to thank you very much for taking this opportunity to express to us your point of view on this particular bill. You may begin.

Mr. Leonard C. Winsor (Chairman-elect, Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of Parliament, and all the rest of the audience - who've probably left by now.

First of all, I'll say thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation today on Bill C-66, which we hope will amend part I of the Canada Labour Code and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. We in the chamber movement in Newfoundland and Labrador support and agree with the innovative changes for the legislation and the collective bargaining environment, which we understand has not been experienced since the 1970s.

It has been the philosophy of the local, provincial, regional and Canadian chambers that governments at all levels should be committed to creating a proper environment for creating and maintaining economic growth and job creation. The revisions and amendments contained in Bill C-66 will, we believe, if passed, contribute to this commitment at the federal level.

.1805

Although all of the amendments are important to the creation of economic growth, my purpose here today is primarily to support one of these amendments. It is contained in the category of essential services, which ensure that those services that have an impact on public health and safety are maintained when parties are involved in a work stoppage.

In March 1996, at the AGM of the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce, a policy resolution was passed seeking to have the gulf ferry service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, designated as an essential service that is free from disruption due to labour relations. This policy along with others was discussed with the cabinet of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador at a meeting with the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber board of directors.

The general consensus given by the premier at that time was that they supported the policy and would pursue discussions at the federal level through the provincial Minister of Labour. This policy has since been supported, with some wordsmithing, as policy by the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce at its annual general meeting in Charlottetown, P.E.I., in May 1996. I've given just a little change in the wording of the policy: ``That the interprovincial ferry services in Atlantic Canada be designated as an essential service that is free from disruption due to labour relations.''

The rationale behind this policy is that the service across the gulf is really an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. You've heard that at least twice since I've been here in this committee room. I would ask that if workers stopped movement of traffic anywhere else along the Trans-Canada Highway, would the people in that particular location allow the situation to continue?

A major effort was made in 1990 to have the service declared essential, but the federal government at that time was non-committal on the matter. The majority of freight that enters the province does so by way of the gulf ferry to Port aux Basques. This freight link is the lifeblood of the food industry that supplies our province. It is also one source of transport for our manufactured products to other markets. This is especially true for some of the products from the west coast of the province.

Our businesses within the tourism sector - and my friend will comment more on this in a few moments - are reliant to a large extent on the travelling public who use this service. Although there has not been a strike at Marine Atlantic for some 23 years, the threat of a strike is just as detrimental as a strike itself.

I have one practical example. This was given to me by a tourism industry person in central Newfoundland. He is quite reliant on bus tours to the province, which are a major economic generator for the province for many of our tourism-related businesses. One such business tells of 30% of previously booked tours for 1995 being cancelled that year. It is reasonable to believe that the threat of a strike may have been the cause of some of these cancellations. The ripple effect of such a loss is tremendous. At this point in time, with the economy of our province, any negative effect is too much. This is just one of the many examples that can be cited as to how the economic well-being of our province can be negatively affected.

I'd like to get to practical examples. I don't know if some people will agree with this one, but I look at this service as being similar to an umbilical cord between the unborn baby and its mother. If the umbilical cord is severed or restricted, the health and safety of the fetus is in danger. The same is true for the health, safety, and most importantly, economic well-being, of our people if a disruption in the gulf ferry service is experienced.

In closing, let me say that it's not the intention of our business people to limit the rights of the worker to a degree that endangers their livelihood but to see an amicable solution to this situation for all concerned. From the information I have seen on the remaining amendments to the Canada Labour Code, I believe this is also the wish of the federal government.

I have included three letters of support that were gained in just the past couple of days.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Winsor.

.1810

Ms Duke.

Ms Cathy Duke (Executive Director, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you very much.

I'm the executive director of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the tourism industry association in our province. We currently represent 500 members. I'm not going to read completely from the brief I have submitted. I'd like to talk just briefly about the tourism industry, and then I will be referring directly to page 2 of my brief.

As I'm sure you are all aware, the Newfoundland economy has received a number of blows in recent years, not the least of which has been the closure of the northern cod fishery, which put some 25,000 people out of work. We have been working very hard over the last number of years to look at ways we can rebuild our economy, build on our strengths, and focus on those industry sectors where we feel we have the most potential for wealth generation and employment.

Through the work we have done unilaterally as well as with the federal government, we have focused on three major industries where we feel we will have that kind of potential for growth. As well as tourism, we have focused on the information technology and aquaculture industries.

So as you can see, tourism is a very big priority for us, and it's something that is very real in that it can give employment to people who live in the rural areas of our province. The timing is right for us, in the sense that with the aging population, the interests of that group can be met by the products that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, in terms of general touring, sightseeing, the kinds of natural attractions we have with our icebergs, our whales, our birds, with hunting and fishing, and with our cultural and heritage sites. So it's something that's very important.

Last year our statistics showed that tourism was the fourth largest industry in our province, and it represented 4% of our gross domestic product. It employed 24,000 people, and it has about 2,300 tourism-related businesses.

There are many challenges yet to developing our tourism industry. They include marketing our product, doing more development on the product side, and human resource development.

The reason I give that background is that it leads me to the whole aspect of transportation. Transportation is a key component to developing our tourism industry as well. Our product must be accessible and affordable, and travel to our destination obviously must be safe.

One of the key elements to transportation in our province is marine access. We have a number of major concerns regarding marine access to the province when it comes to the development of the tourism industry. I'm referring now to page 2 of my brief.

Stability is really the major issue of concern and relates to the necessity of ensuring a stable, reliable marine service both to and from mainland Canada but also within the province. A stable ferry link with the rest of Canada is vital to the island portion of our province. The threat of a Marine Atlantic strike, however, is a constant deterrent to many would-be tourists to our province, as many choose not to venture beyond North Sydney, Nova Scotia, for fear of being stranded in Newfoundland as a result of a strike.

Although - as Mr. Winsor indicated as well - there has not been a strike at Marine Atlantic for 23 years, the threat of a strike is as detrimental to business as a strike itself. The union contract with Marine Atlantic is negotiated every couple of years and negotiations generally take some time. A threat of a strike is news that is generally well covered by the media in mainland Canada, and this is often a determining factor for potential visitors. It has also not been uncommon for visitors to the island to receive flyers from Marine Atlantic employees in North Sydney warning travellers of an impending strike and cautioning them that they may not secure return passage for some time. Individual travellers have been dissuaded in this way, and motor coach tour operators have also been discouraged from coming, as they cannot take the financial risk of perhaps having to fly their passengers out of Newfoundland and picking up another bus in Nova Scotia. The profit margins of motor coach tour companies does not allow them this flexibility.

In a perfect world, such actions can be prevented through good labour relations. The reality, however, is that this is not always possible, and other measures are required to ensure such situations do not arise. It is recommended that Marine Atlantic and other privately operated coastal services be designated an essential service, free from threat of strike, and that any outstanding issues be dealt with through third-party resolution. While this does not protect the industry from an illegal strike, it does add an element of protection.

.1815

I won't read the rest of my brief this time. I will conclude by saying that the issue of having Marine Atlantic services deemed essential services has been presented to government previously, without success. Travellers need to be able to access our tourism product in an affordable and safe manner. They also need the reassurance that the service will in fact be there when they need us.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Duke.

I'd also like to bring to your attention that the portions of your report that were not read will also be part of the record.

We'll move now to the question and answer session.

Mr. Ménard from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: This is a good day for Newfoundland, because we have heard four witnesses from that province. I think I know where the more pleasant influence has been coming from.

In your mind, does the fact that the bill explicitly states that gulf ferries are essential services mean that there is no right to strike or, on the contrary, do you agree that this is compatible with the right to strike and that services and the number of workers would be agreed on previously. Have you discussed the position that you have taken today with the unions representing ferry workers?

[English]

Mr. Winsor: On the first part of your question, basically my interpretation of ``essential service'' on that particular route is that the right to strike would not be taken away, but there would have to be enough designated employees to keep that service operating. That, to me, would be one way of gaining the essential service.

As for the second part, I certainly have not had the opportunity to talk to the union people regarding it, no.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: That is something that the Official Opposition could agree with, but do you think that the unions would agree?

[English]

Ms Duke: I can't really answer that question.

In talking to several of the management officials with Marine Atlantic, I get the impression that the labour relations have at times been very difficult for them. I'm just not sure whether they could actually get that agreement or not. I really can't say that I know.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: What are the factors in the dispute? What makes the working environment difficult, in your opinion?

[English]

Ms Duke: I'm sorry. I really can't answer the question, because I'm not privy to the relationship the management has with the union employees.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Byrne: I appreciate very much that you've been able to take the time to come to Ottawa. Actually you're the third presenter of a group on this particular issue.

I'm curious as to why, through previous consultation, this committee, and to the best of my knowledge the Department of Labour, haven't really been advised of this particular issue and why it's really striking upon the committee as of today. I'm just curious as to what the background is. Has any sort of representation been made in the past?

Mr. Winsor: Yes. I've alluded to it in my presentation, but not in any great detail.

I've been involved in the chamber movement for approximately four years, and it's my understanding from the present chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce that back in 1990 a policy was passed, as we have passed the policy this past year, to get the service deemed essential. That also went through the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce and became policy of that chamber. It was also a policy of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. I believe it was presented to the government through the Department of Transportation because the Canada Labour Code wasn't open for discussion at that time.

.1820

The gist of what we were trying to do was to get some legislation enacted somewhere to make it an essential service, but because the Canada Labour Code wasn't even open for discussion, it couldn't be done through that particular code.

Back in 1990 I believe there was some discussion on transportation issues and that's why it was brought to that particular committee or whatever, but I think the government of the day was non-committal at that time.

Mr. Byrne: So it's not the first time the issue has been brought to the fore; it is just that it hasn't necessarily been brought to the attention of the Canada Labour Code. You were looking for amendment or protection from some instrument other than the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Winsor: I think that was what was endeavoured back in 1990, and I guess the people who were trying to get this didn't realize that maybe the Canada Labour Code was the place they should have gone looking for the change.

Mr. Byrne: Can you indulge me, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Absolutely. Go ahead.

Mr. Byrne: I find it very interesting that employees would actually - You mention in your brief that they produced leaflets or pamphlets warning tourists away from the ferry. Is that correct?

Ms Duke: This is what I understand from talking to operators and members of our association who have had visitors travel to the province. On the Nova Scotia side of the run they have been cautioned about -

Mr. Byrne: I just want to pick up on that point because I too have heard of similar instances. It has to be kept in mind that this is a constitutionally obligated service, that according to the terms of union with Newfoundland, a subsidy would be paid by the federal government to the operator of the service. So from the perspective of an employee or the bargaining agent, whether or not anybody is using the service is immaterial.

According to the terms of union, the federal government has to pay for the service. So if you were the bargaining agent, you would have somewhat of an advantage, I would imagine, in terms of - You could make your point very aggressively by turning away business or discouraging business, yet without potential threat from the fact that your employer could go bankrupt. Your employer can never go bankrupt because the service would still be provided. To do otherwise would be in violation of the terms of union.

I think it's an important point to bring to the committee, because that is what this committee is looking at: the balance of labour relations. This committee and this act does not take very lightly any move to produce legislation that provides an imbalance between the rights of employees and the rights of employers. We take that responsibility very seriously, but through the research you've done and some of the things that have been brought to the committee as of today, the fact that it is a constitutionally provided service means there can be no stoppage in the service. The employer cannot lock the employees out.

The employer, being Marine Atlantic, a federal crown corporation, is the instrument by which the federal obligation under the Constitution is delivered. As a federal crown corporation, it is not able to break a term of union in the Constitution.

.1825

Ms Duke: Absolutely. I think that's a very good point. The service is constitutionally mandated, so one way or the other the federal government has the obligation to provide that service. As you say, they pay either way.

Mr. Byrne: Has your association made any sort of reference to the quality of service or the level of service in terms of the Constitution, or is that -

Ms Duke: It is an issue that's also of concern to our association. I hadn't raised it today, but we are in ongoing discussions with Marine Atlantic about the level of service, particularly customer service, and the quality of the whole experience, particularly as it relates to the tourism industry.

Our feeling is that Transport Canada has never really felt that transportation had an important role in the tourism industry, that basically it has an obligation to move goods from one point to another. It is very critical to the development of our industry in Newfoundland. We hope we will be able to continue to lobby for improvements in that area.

Mr. Byrne: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: We're going to go back to the Bloc.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very endearing.

Mr. Barn told us that Marine Atlantic was a Crown corporation. If it is a Crown corporation - perhaps I missed something - why does the Public Service Staff Relations Act not apply? Could you explain that?

[English]

Mr. Winsor: I'm not totally educated on all aspects of which union would represent, but I believe that if it is a crown corporation, it does not necessarily have to be represented by the public service union. It can be some other union.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: Perhaps it is a Newfoundland Crown corporation.

[English]

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, this ferry service was under CN, a crown corporation, before it was privatized. So it was under the Canada Labour Code, as railroads were and as interprovincial transportation systems still are. So interprovincial ferry services are under the Canada Labour Code. Whether or not it is a crown corporation, that's normally the way it works.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Does that clarify the point, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, that is truly very clear.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you for coming all the way from Newfoundland to express your point of view. I thought you brought some very interesting points, points that might have escaped members of this committee, and for that we're very grateful. Thank you, and have a safe trip home.

Mr. Winsor: On the ferry.

The Chairman: This concludes the public hearings on Bill C-66. We'll be back on Monday for clause-by-clause.

Mr. Ménard: Not at 9 a.m., but at 9:30 a.m..

The Chairman: We will be here at 9 a.m. and we will be waiting for you to get here at 9:30 a.m. I don't think we would start without the opposition.

Do I have unanimous consent to change the time?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page