[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 21, 1996
.1538 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our subcommittee on Bill C-3, which is part of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Our order of the day reads that Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, nuclear undertakings, and to make a related amendment to another act, be now read a second time.
I welcome witnesses from New Brunswick again. Sorry we're a bit late, gentlemen. We have Mr. Baird. I will let you introduce your colleagues, please.
I understand we have a half-hour. You have a submission. Whatever amount of time you don't take, we can have questions from the floor, if you wish.
Mr. C. S. Baird (Executive Vice-President, New Brunswick Power Corporation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am Charles Baird, executive vice-president of New Brunswick Power Corporation. With me today is Peter Dykeman, our senior counsel, and Paul Thériault, our vice-president of human resources and administration.
Our senior counsel would like to give our brief, after which we would be prepared to answer questions as you deem appropriate.
Mr. Peter J. Dykeman (General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, New Brunswick Power Corporation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for giving New Brunswick Power Corporation this opportunity to appear and speak to this committee in support of Bill C-3.
.1540
N.B. Power does support this bill. We're quite happy and comfortable with the bill as presented. We've worked, as utilities, with Hydro-Québec and Ontario Hydro, and with our government in New Brunswick, to put the pieces in place to have this bill brought forward.
We believe that the bill does allow for an appropriate mechanism to allow for the delegation back to the Province of New Brunswick of the ability to administer labour relations with respect to this narrowly defined aspect of nuclear power plants.
Of course, N.B. Power, as our colleagues John Cole and Ray Dixon pointed out this morning, has one nuclear plant that is indeed, as they stated, the very best, number one, in the world, in the capacity factor, let's say, to the end of March 1995. Mr. Baird can speak to that.
I think committee members made the point this morning that, since its commissioning in 1983, the nuclear plant has been operated and regulated, as to its labour relations, under the Public Service Labour Relations Act of the Province of New Brunswick, along with all other plants and parts of the New Brunswick Power Corporation's generating, transmission and distribution system.
The New Brunswick Power Corporation is of course a crown corporation, an agent of the Province of New Brunswick. Its mandate is the economic and reliable production of electricity for the people of New Brunswick. Again, as it was pointed out, we do export electricity to P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and Hydro-Québec from time to time. We also import large amounts of power from Hydro-Québec, up to 600 megawatts currently. We also export into the U.S. as power is available and as the markets will allow.
So we were glad the point was made this morning that the regulation of labour in New Brunswick pursuant to our provincial statutes has allowed for, I think, a harmonious and happy disposition of collective bargaining and regulation of labour in the province.
That nuclear plant doesn't operate in isolation. It is part of the integrated system. As Mr. Thériault and Mr. Baird will say, the personnel move back and forth among the plants. It is one plant.
The reason then that N.B. Power is here is because it's very important for us at N.B. Power to be allowed to continue to regulate labour under the provincial statutes. We think this bill will allow for it.
We don't disagree with the comments made by Hydro-Québec this morning, but we are quite comfortable with the legislation as presented.
I guess the problem created by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in September 1995.... The ruling is undoubtedly correct. Jurisdiction over the regulation of labour in this federal work and undertaking - even though it is owned provincially, it is a federal work and undertaking - is, as the Supreme Court said, integral to the operation of the federal work and undertaking. We don't dispute that.
What we have attempted to do is find a way to allow for the delegation back of the administration of labour pursuant to our provincial laws and under the management or administration of the present boards and personnel that manage labour in New Brunswick.
The great problem created by the moving of the jurisdiction from the provincial to the federal sphere is the split jurisdiction. There's the fact that we now will have part of our system, the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, regulated under federal law, and the rest of the system regulated under the laws of the province.
Not only that, I imagine the committee members fully realize that the problem doesn't stop there. The Supreme Court of Canada said labour, as to nuclear works and undertakings, is within the jurisdiction of the federal government, but it did not define, on the site itself, whether the jurisdiction extended beyond the production of heat by nuclear fission within the nuclear reactor, which is likely within the containment building of the plan.
.1545
What then of the conventional side, which is the generation of electricity through the turbine generator with steam from the nuclear reactor, the administration, the assimilator building, the security forces and the rest of it?
That question will not be settled without a further trip to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Of course, the committee is aware of the hiatus in the labour situation with the moving of jurisdiction out of the province, up to the federal government, yet the Canada Labour Code is not stated to expressly bind the Crown, as Mr. Dixon related. There is a question there, and there is a need for federal action to cure that.
We're happy with the federal action being taken to amend the Canada Labour Code to now bind Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province with respect to nuclear undertakings regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board. It's fine. It does the things we want.
Speaking of the Atomic Energy Control Board, it's well to remember that they continue to be accountable for the safe operation of that plant, and those of Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Québec. The Atomic Energy Control Board has that responsibility, and the federal government continues to have the responsibility to regulate the production of nuclear energy. We're talking here only of one aspect of the operation, which is the management of labour relations at the plant.
We recognize the federal jurisdiction. We would like it delegated back to the province to continue what has worked so well to date.
I think really that's about all I want to say. I have stated that the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station represents 34.2% of the total energy produced. So you can see how important the plant is to the Province of New Brunswick and its economic operation.
Our recommendation therefore is for Bill C-3 to be enacted as presented.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll start the questions off with the official opposition. Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve): Mr. Chairman, the witnesses before us seem pleased with the situation. I'm sure you will agree that this is not something that happens every day. I would just like to make a clarification , which I'm sure they will agree. They represent management, and we heard quite a different story from the union representatives. That is to be expected.
I have two questions. As administrators, what is the impact of the regulations and control imposed by Atomic Energy Canada? In very concrete terms, what does this mean for your activities as managers?
As members of Parliament, we have to choose between reverting to the situation you had before 1983, by passing this bill, or allowing you to continue to use the legislative structure in place in your province. In either case, some of your activities will be regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Act.
I would like a specific idea about the impact of having to comply with two sets of regulations as managers.
[English]
Mr. Baird: In very concrete terms, the regulation by the Atomic Energy Control Board deals with the safe operation of the facility with every aspect of its nuclear physical safety and occupational safety within the confines of the plant.
In terms of dealing with a split in the jurisdiction in which we have both a federal regulation on the technical side and a provincial regulation on the human resource, union and management side of it, that has not presented us with a problem to date in that we were freely able to move people from one plant to the other, one work area to the other.
For instance, the terminal switch gear section has been serviced by the terminal transmission division, not by the nuclear division.
.1550
We foresee a difficulty with a federal union at Point Lepreau and the rest of our integrated system within provincial labour jurisdiction. That could present a problem. Unlike the construction industry, we do not have a large precedence of who has jurisdiction within the trade union movement for certain aspects of that. We've always treated it as one entity. So we can see some difficulty coming down the road if it is not ceded back to the province to keep one regulatory process for the labour relations side.
With regard to continued presence of the Atomic Energy Control Board, we certainly welcome that at the site. They do an excellent job as a regulator, and their presence is certainly of benefit to the utility, as well as to the people of Canada. Theirs is a very technical, overview type of management. They do not get involved in the labour side of it in any way.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I assume our witnesses are speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of the Government of New Brunswick. On the basis of their experience, can we take it that the personal views they are expressing here might be very well be the same as that of the Minister of Energy or the Minister of Labour of New Brunswick?
I don't know either one of them. However, I would like confirmation that if we are asked to pass Bill C-3, we might expect that New Brunswick will ask the member for Saint-Léonard, the Minister of Labour, for the right to use these regulations.
As you know, there is a provision in the bill which provides that this must be done at the request of the provinces, in the context of negotiations, not consultations. Thus, if I understand correctly, the view you are expressing is shared by the New Brunswick Government, which is not the most progressive government in Canada. Although that's another matter.
I hope I haven't insulted your friends.
[English]
Mr. Dykeman: Thank you again, Mr. Ménard. We appreciate your comments.
Indeed, New Brunswick Power Corporation has worked very closely with the Government of New Brunswick. We initiated a request for this action almost two years ago through Vaughn Blaney, Minister of Advanced Education and Labour, by letter to Lloyd Axworthy, then Minister of Human Resources Development in the federal government.
We have again worked closely with our human resources ministry in detailing the manner by which this can be accomplished through the New Brunswick statutes, for example, that are to be activated through the Order in Council or the Governor in Council. So we're not here in isolation; we are here with the full knowledge, consent and cooperation of the government, which is busily at work with your federal counterparts to ensure that the mechanism is appropriately activated.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: As a brief question, Mr. Chairman. Some witnesses share the view of the Official Opposition, namely that the legal delegation back should not be done by regulation, but rather directly through an act of Parliament. I already know what your answer will be, but it is an intellectual pleasure for me to ask it anyway. Do you have any concerns about the procedure? Ultimately, anything done by regulation could also be undone by regulation, without going through people's elected representatives in the Parliament of Canada. Don't you think that, strictly in terms of democracy, this is a point that could be called into question?
I will proceed to ask a supplementary question, because I know the Chairman won't give me the floor again. In your province, how many pieces of legislation would be affected by the delegation back of these powers? How many would apply in New Brunswick?
[English]
Mr. Dykeman: I believe there may be as many as a dozen. I don't know the answer to that for sure, but there are a number of them, such as the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Act. There are quite a number of them.
.1555
As to the more important question you asked, whether we had concerns about the mechanism that has been proposed in this bill, that is, Order in Council, which may be done and undone, it was our understanding it was set up in this way to allow flexibility to allow those provinces that did not want to go back to their provincial jurisdictions to stay with the federal, or to choose how they wish to be regulated. For New Brunswick's part, for New Brunswick Power Corporation's part, we are used to the regulation of labour through our present provincial laws and are happy to have that returned to us.
It may be fifty years.... The New Brunswick Electric Power Commission has been in being since 1921 and its labour relations have always been regulated under provincial jurisdiction. The nuclear plant has been regulated under provincial jurisdiction since 1983, and it has worked well.
We're happy to have that ability to regulate labour delegated back to us. I'm sure the federal government remains accountable, but we would like to administer it according to our own provincial laws.
As to the answer to your question whether it be the wish of Parliament to inscribe the delegation in the legislation, we would have no objection to that. We hadn't proposed that, but we don't disagree with it. We understand what you're saying. If it be Parliament's wish to inscribe it in legislation, it would suit our purposes.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: That is support for the opposition's amendments, Mr. Chairman. I see that as support for our amendments.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
We'll move around the table. The Reform Party is next. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Welcome, gentlemen.
I'm wondering about the contractual situation at Point Lepreau. Do you have separate collective agreements for various trades and sectors in the plant? If so, do all the people who are directly employed around the reactor belong to one separate union and have one collective agreement, distinct from that for the rest of the plant?
Mr. Baird: We have one collective agreement for the technical and craft trade workers with the IBEW at the plant. It would include those directly operating the reactor. We have a separate collective agreement with the IBEW technical and clerical support unit for the office workers and people such as that around the plant. The security guards at the station at this stage are non-unionized, as are the engineers and the management.
We have another IBEW local, 1733, in our conventional plants. They have access to the station in times of overload. If they're doing a major outage at the station we move people from our conventional plants to our nuclear plant to support it. The switchyard, which removes the energy from the station, is maintained by the workers from 1733.
So we have one union, the IBEW, but three distinct locals work around that station. But the primary one is 2309 Technical.
Mr. Morrison: Would it be fair to say, then, that you do have, within the same collective agreement with the electrical workers, people who are subject to AECB regulation and people who are not?
Mr. Baird: That is true.
The Chairman: On the government side, any questions?
Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the people from New Brunswick Power for coming here. I think the message they have given us is the message I have been trying to get across, probably not very successfully, in the last couple of days. This piece of legislation has been proposed to solve some problems, to streamline the process, and to put the labour relations administration back into the provinces' hands, nonetheless allowing the federal government to maintain its responsibility for the nuclear climate.
On my friend Mr. Ménard's regulation versus legislation, as you said, Mr. Dykeman, the reason for the regulation is its flexibility. Industrial relations are built on flexibility, and I would hazard to bet that if we put it into legislation people would be holding it up and saying, ``If not for that legislation, we could change things and do it a little bit better''.
.1600
I'm not always in favour of regulations, but I think this is a time that allows the provinces to opt in or not to opt in.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I can tell you right now that we couldn't get anti-scab legislation through regulations.
[English]
The Chairman: Do we have any other questions on this bill?
Mr. Ménard?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: No, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions for the witnesses before us.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your submission.
Mr. Baird: Thank you. I appreciate having had the committee's time.
The Chairman: Our next witnesses are from the Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique d'Hydro-Québec.
I will let the president, Robert Boisvert, introduce his colleagues.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Boisvert (President, Local 1500, Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique d'Hydro-Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Committee members. This is the first time we have appeared before a committee of this type. So we would ask for your indulgence.
I would like to start by introducing the people with me: Jean-Pierre Daigle, permanent advisor to the Canadian Union of Public Employees; Claude Bélanger, representative of the Technicians' Union, Local 957; and Jacques Boucher, representative of the Office Staff, Local 2000.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will read our brief statement. It will take me four or five minutes to read this summary. We will then be available to answer any questions you may have.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees represents at Hydro-Québec three locals namely, Local 957, Local 1500 and Local 2000. Together the three locals represent approximately 17,000 members. At the Gentilly nuclear power station, since 1969, CUPE represents the workers of the three locals. Today, there are about 459 members.
Local 957 is made up of the technicians, Local 1500 the operators and trades, and Local 2000 the office personnel.
Since 1969, at the beginning of nuclear power in Quebec, CUPE has always recognized the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the federal on atomic energy control Act and more precisely the mandate that this law gives to the Atomic Energy Control Board.
We have even provided for in our collective agreement, clauses recognizing the certification of the operators by the AECB. However, in the field of labour relations in the nuclear sector, we have since 1969 always been covered by the Quebec Labour Code.
However, on September 30, 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that labour relations in Canadian nuclear power stations were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. This decision resolved an old dilemma between Hydro-Ontario, its employees and the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Is this decision applicable entirely to the Gentilly nuclear power station?
.1605
Following the Supreme Court's decision, our colleagues in the Union of Professional Engineers of Hydro-Québec applied on October 4, 1994, for a certification before the Canada Labour Relations Board in order to comply with the decision and thus continue to represent the engineers at the Gentilly nuclear power station or Gentilly-2.
CUPE has refrained from filing for certification before the CLRB, but is following closely the steps taken by the UPEHQ. The results of the steps undertaken identify a judicial void in which the UPEHQ and CUPE's members find themselves. It seems that the judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the Gentilly power station.
We find this situation uncomfortable and think it could become prejudicial towards the members we represent. Chapter A-16 of the Statutes, the Atomic Energy Control Act gives the frame work for the operation and safety of nuclear installations in the country. This is a fact and we think that the same stringency of the well-defined jurisdiction should apply in labour relations.
It would seem opportune to us to rapidly fill in the juridical void in labour relations at the Gentilly nuclear power station, in keeping with the Preamble to section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867, which permits Parliament to legislate for peace, order and good government.
We recommend that the committee submit to Parliament a bill covering efficiently the field of labour relations and at the same time recognizing for the workers at the Gentilly nuclear power station, the right to union representation, a right they believe they have had since 1969.
To this end, we ask you to amend the Canada Labour Code in order to transfer powers from the federal government to Quebec so that the the Quebec labour Code fully applies to the Gentilly nuclear power station.
We also recommend that the transfer of powers maintain in effect the collective agreements already in place as well as the resulting rights, benefits and obligations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[English]
We'll go through the same procedure and turn it over to the official opposition. Mr. Ménard, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: We are establishing a protocol which makes us all feel comfortable.Mr. Boisvert, am I to understand that you agree with Bill C-3's goals, but you do not feel that it is the appropriate vehicle, that we should not use legislation, but rather an amendment to the Canada Labour Code?
Mr. Boisvert: I should point out that we are representatives of the workers and our training is not in law or parliamentary procedure, as is yours, I believe.
Mr. Ménard: Fortunately, Mr. Boisvert! Fortunately!
Mr. Boisvert: On that point, we defer to you.
Our concern is this. In our minds it has always been clear that this falls under Quebec's Labour Code. Recent events have shown us that there was a legal vacuum. We are trying to achieve a type of trustworthiness and security to ensure the stability of labour relations throughout the Gentilly facility.
We feel that a regulation is not necessarily the right solution to provide this stability. In fact, a regulation may be changed depending on circumstances and the times, whereas legislation must be passed by Parliament.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I think the witness is absolutely right. In fact, this is also the position of the Syndicat professionnel des ingénieurs d'Hydro-Québec, and it is also the principle behind the Bloc québécois' amendments.
Regardless, you are saying here that you would still like to be regulated by the Quebec Labour Code.
Mr. Boisvert: Exactly.
.1610
Mr. Ménard: You say that experience has proven that this was a satisfactory framework.
You also do not question the Atomic Energy Board's need to supervise. In any case, under Bill C-3, the Atomic Energy Board will still be responsible for regulating this whole area.
Your concerns are with respect to the vehicle. It is using regulations that you have a problem with.
Mr. Boisvert: From the beginning, we have had relatively good relations. Of course, there has been tension from time to time, but recently, labour relations and the understanding and collegiality between union members and Hydro-Quebec's management have been truly pleasant.
We feel that it was very difficult to establish this collegiality and understanding and that by having new regulations or rules all of a sudden it could be jeopardized.
Mr. Ménard: I think you are right in drawing our attention to these concerns. They have also been our concerns from the beginning. But if we did nothing, if we kept the status quo, you would be faced with a legal vacuum, is that not so?
Mr. Boisvert: Exactly.
Mr. Ménard: If we were to stop this process, we could deprive about a hundred workers, if not more...
Mr. Boisvert: Four hundred and fifty.
Mr. Ménard: ... 450 workers of the right to union representation.
Mr. Boisvert: Exactly.
Mr. Ménard: I think this is a message that has to be clearly understood.
Now, just to truly understand the situation, let us recall that we are dealing with three unions. You represent the technicians, therefore people who... Could you give us an example of their duties?
Mr. Claude Bélanger (Representative, local section 957, Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique d'Hydro-Québec): They are responsible for the technical support for automatic operating mechanisms.
Mr. Ménard: That is probably clear to you, but I must admit that it does not make it much clearer to me; I have a hard time just changing a flat tire.
Let us say that there are three unions: office staff; Mr. Daigle represents the professionals...
Mr. Jacques Boucher (President, Local section 2000, Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique d'Hydro-Québec): No, the CUPE. He is the labour representative.
Mr. Ménard: The union representative?
Mr. Boucher: Yes, that's it.
Mr. Ménard: Fine.
The issue of union protection and a legal vacuum would apply to each of the job categories you represent. You would also hope that provincial legislation would apply in each of your work units.
It is quite clear when put in those words.
Mr. Boisvert: Sir, as I mentioned earlier, we have achieved a certain working harmony in our facility.
I would also like to point out, as our colleagues from New Brunswick said earlier, that the Gentilly-2 power station is unique in Quebec. It represents approximately 3% of Hydro Quebec's total production, on the whole of the market.
Of course, this does not have the same impact that Ontario Hydro may have. However, in New Brunswick, the ratio is somewath smaller compared to Hydro Quebec. So the ratio is truly 3% and not 30% as was mentioned earlier.
However, to follow up on what you were saying earlier, operators and tradespersons responsible for the facility's maintenance, are probably those most affected by the various federal regulations, especially those of the Board - from a training and certification standpoint. The Supervisory Board is responsible for accrediting these people as well as for issuing the facility's operating licence.
This is very strict. We are conscious of that and we are saying that it must continue to be so because that is the way things work. The public must be convinced that it is using a truly safe system and it is appropriate that people from the outside be responsible for supervising or inspecting the facility.
We are aware that operating, safety, training and certification are clearly the federal government's jurisdiction. We accept that and we work within that framework.
As I said earlier, in our collective agreements, we have even taken into account certain factors, mainly, qualifications recognized by the Supervisory Board, salaries, career profiles and other factors.
Everything has been fine since 1969. We would like it to continue to be so. We are asking you to give us the tool to help us do that.
Mr. Ménard: And in your mind, that tool is a bill?
Mr. Boisvert: As I said, we are not legal experts, but we believe that a bill would be an appropriate tool. There are perhaps several possible tools. Now, if you could clarify...
Mr. Boucher: When we use a bill, democracy is speaking.
.1615
Obviously, we prefer democracy. We could sum up our position in saying that, but we do not want to prolong the debate. The unions did not come just to speak about the legal aspects. I'm convinced that you are all doing your job around this table. What we wanted to bring to your attention was the nuclear facility's workers experience.
Mr. Ménard: Fine. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
We will move on to Mr. Morrison of the Reform Party, if he has any questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Morrison: No, I do not have any questions right now.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there questions on the government side?
Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): You say that you've presented this position today on behalf of the three locals, so I would assume it has been approved by the executives of those three locals. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Boisvert: Yes, we are the presidents or the representatives.
Personally Madam, I am elected, somewhat like yourself, except that I only have a three-year mandate. If the members are not happy with this, they do not re-elect us. Therefore, we are truly representatives.
[English]
Ms Brown: All right. You say that not just the presidents alone but the executives have approved this position. Has it been lifted to any higher level of CUPE? Has the provincial executive of CUPE looked at this position and agreed with it?
[Translation]
Mr. Boisvert: I believe your question concerns organizations. Was there an office meeting and was there a motion that authorized us to take this position? The answer is no. However, this subject was discussed and debated. Our president did not feel that we needed to debate a motion on the subject. We simply discussed our position amongst ourselves and our presentation to you is the result of those discussions. There was no vote per say on that subject.
[English]
Ms Brown: So the three presidents got together and agreed that this would be the position. That answers my question on the local theme, but I have a further question. Did you check with anybody higher up the hierarchy in CUPE to see if they agreed with this position?
[Translation]
Mr. Boisvert: Yes, Madam. If I understood your question correctly, yes the members of Quebec's union section, that is associated with Hydro Quebec and number approximately 17,000, are a party to this decision.
[English]
Ms Brown: Okay, good.
I don't know if you were here this morning, but I think you're aware that you're the only group representing labour that has spoken in favour of this; Ontario and New Brunswick have spoken against.
[Translation]
Mr. Boisvert: Madam, I believe that Ontario Hydro's people are facing a different problem. They are currently involved in collective bargaining with the Ontario government and their concerns may not be the same as ours. Ontario's workers have benefitted from a Supreme Court decision, whereas we are now faced with a legal vacuum as a result of this same decision. Our priorities are not the same.
[English]
Ms Brown: Yes, I understand.
[Translation]
Mr. Boisvert: We want someone to point out a direction to us. Ontario's concerns have more to do with social peace because they are currently negotiating; we would not want regulations to change in the process, because this could further upset the bargaining process in Ontario.
[English]
Ms Brown: I notice in your presentation you seem quite worried about this judicial void and you realize that if this bill passes you will be named as the formal negotiators. Since the judicial decision of 1993, have you had problems negotiating with Hydro-Québec because of that judicial void, or have things just rolled along the way they did in the past?
[Translation]
Mr. Boisvert: By definition, Madam, negotiations imply conflicts in interpretation or discussions. I do not think that in the past, we have had jurisdictional problems in trying to use or obtain our bargaining mandates. However, obviously negotiations can become prolonged and...
[English]
Ms Brown: So Hydro-Québec has recognized you through this period.
[Translation]
Mr. Boisvert: Yes, since 1969.
[English]
Since 1969.
Ms Brown: So the judicial void really didn't cause you any problems.
Mr. Boisvert: No.
Ms Brown: Okay.
.1620
I want to take you just one step further, maybe to put you in the shoes of your Ontario colleagues.
While this bill guarantees you successor rights - that is, as this changeover is made - you will officially be the bargaining agents. But should Hydro-Québec choose to privatize, we, through this bill, cannot guarantee that you would have the successor rights there. That would depend on the Government of Quebec. Do you understand that? This set of successor rights only takes you into provincial jurisdictions. Once you are there, should they decide to privatize and eliminate your successor rights, we then can't interfere and give them back to you. Do you realize that?
Mr. Boisvert: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Proud.
Mr. Proud: I think Bonnie asked all my questions. Thank you.
The Chairman: I thank you for an excellent round. I learned a lot myself.
Now we have to go in camera for a few moments to discuss a bit of business.
Thank you, witnesses.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
.1651
[Public proceedings resume]
The Chairman: We'll call the meeting back to order on Bill C-3. We're going into clause-by-clause consideration.
On clause 1
The Chairman: I believe we have two amendments to clause 1.
Would you like to read your amendments, Mr. Ménard?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would not be preferable to do the clause-by-clause study tomorrow morning. It may not be the case for everyone around this table, but personally I am a little tired. I'm not as robust as you are. If the government wishes, we could take care of this tomorrow morning between 9 and 11 o'clock. It's not because we want to...
[English]
The Chairman: We agreed to do it today, and we actually have only five clauses and five amendments. I realize that we have a vote coming up too, but I thought we could perhaps proceed with these.
[Translation]
Please.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I expressed a contrary opinion, but if you want to proceed, we will proceed.
The Chairman: I'm sorry, thank you very much.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I will just say one thing about the amendments that we are proposing because they all have the same thrust. It applies to each of those five or six clauses that refer to the possibility of a regulation being adopted by the Governor in Council.
We hope, for the same reasons that we have presented from the beginning, that this would be done through legislation. Our legislative advisors have explained that the way to achieve this goal is to eliminate the reference to the Governor in Council in the bill. That is the purpose of the five amendments that we have proposed. I am hopeful that the parliamentary secretary will accept them.
[English]
The Chairman: I certainly believe he's listening - or I hope so.
Mr. Ménard, would you like to read out your first amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: One by one? Fine.
[English]
Mr. Proud: Do all of them refer to the same thing?
The Chairman: I think we should give the member the opportunity to read his amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I move that Bill C-3, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 11, on page 1, with the following:
121.1 This Part applies in respect of any employment, or any class or classes of employment, on or in connection with a work or undertaking that is, or is part of, a corporation
As the parliamentary secretary understood, they all have the same thrust. I would agree to dealing with them all together, if that is the wish of the committee.
I am hopeful that the government will accept them.
[English]
Amendment negatived
Mr. Proud: We spoke quite clearly on the reason for regulation versus legislation, which was the flexibility that allows the provinces, the unions, and everybody else.... If you put it in legislation, then they'll be back next year holding it up to you and saying, ``This is stopping us from doing that''.
Regulation is the best way to go on this.
The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, would you like to read your next amendment?
.1655
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, given the situation, I will withdraw the four other amendments and I will present them instead in the House in hope that between now and then I will convince the minister and his entourage, and of course the parliamentary secretary, of the validity of the Official Opposition's amendments.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, that you can do. So we'll go on to clause 1.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the standing committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your cooperation.
The meeting is adjourned.