House of Commons of Canada
Evidence - HRPD (36-1) - No. 26 - House of Commons of Canada
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 1, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

It is my pleasure to introduce to you representatives from Echo Bay Mines Ltd. and the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition. This particular group will take one hour of our time, so we'll hear first from Mr. Leclerc and then from one or more of the people from the Western Canadian Shippers. Then we will begin the round of comments and questions.

Mr. Leclerc.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert L. Leclerc (Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Echo Bay Mines Ltd.): Madam Vice-Chair and committee members, I would like to start by thanking you for giving me this opportunity to appear before you today. Echo Bay is a mining company that owns four mines and a number of development and exploration properties. In North America, three of our mines are in the United States while the fourth is in the Northwest Territories. We have approximately 1,500 employees.

Our purpose here today is not to discuss every aspect of this bill, but to focus on two points relating to voting by secret ballot. On February 19th, in speaking on the bill before the House of Commons, Minister MacAulay said:

[English]

It is not time to cherry pick one item or another to meet the needs of one constituency over another. It is not time to go back to the beginning.

[Translation]

I don't want to go into cherry-picking,

[English]

but I do want to go back to the beginning. I've travelled here from Denver, where I happen to work. It's a long way, and you might say that I have better things to do than get onto airplanes. I have a lot of things to do, but when it comes to freedoms and freedom of choice, I don't really have much else that would take priority over that.

For me, it's a relatively straightforward issue. Since the labour law first got looked at seriously in 1995 after 25 years of not much happening in terms of revision, we woke up and we found that there were two avenues. One was the freedom avenue and the other was the card avenue.

Before I became the chief executive officer of Echo Bay I practised law for almost 30 years. I learned a thing or two, and I've seen, on occasion, the card approach. I've also, when I was a younger fellow, gone around and helped take polls on behalf of people who wanted to get elected. I think people often say things to get rid of you, like, “So long, kid; you bet, I'll vote for your guy”. Then my guy gets thumped at the polls.

When you go through the card collecting exercise, you wind up with a passel of cards that soon may become stale dated, but maybe not, and maybe by the luck of the draw you have 30% or 38%, some percentage. I find it appalling that Parliament would consider introducing a law which that say, “We're going to count the cards and be done with it”.

So here's my first point. I believe strongly that there should be a mandatory requirement that a representation vote be taken. Equally, I feel strongly that when it comes to the question of unfair or allegedly unfair labour practices, this clause 46 in the bill should be eliminated—not amended, not tinkered with, but eliminated.

• 1540

I read the Wal-Mart decision once, said, “I can't believe what I've read”, and read it again. Do the parliamentarians have no regard for their fellow citizens? Do they think so little of people like me? Do they think we are incapable of forming a judgment and standing up and going to the ballot booth and marking an X?

You know, this question of le vote au scrutin secret is not an idle issue to me. If we are going to look at the card-gathering system, I say it is a very sad second choice to tampering with my freedom.

I'm not cherry-picking, Mr. MacAulay. I'm saying we're right into the principles of democracy and fundamental rights.

[Translation]

It's as simple as that.

[English]

I could wax on for two hours, but I've been asked if I would keep it to a dull roar, which is something to ask of an old lawyer. I'll put some water in my wine and refer you to our submission, which covers the points I have made and quotes references to what I think are various applicable provisions.

As I said, it's not my intention to go through the entire law. I think the bill is in many respects long overdue and there are many fulsome and attractive provisions. But this one, in its two branches, needs to be drummed out, and I urge you to take this into consideration when you're making your recommendations.

That's all I have. I'm happy to take questions now or later.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you, Mr. Leclerc. Questions will be asked after your colleagues' presentations.

I will ask the representatives of the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition to make their presentation. Maybe Mr. Renwick would like to begin, or perhaps he'd like to introduce a person who is going to make the main presentation.

Mr. Bob Renwick (Chairman, Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition): I'll start, Madam Chair.

I'm a transportation consultant with the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, in Vancouver. The Council of Forest Industries provides the chair and the secretariat for the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition.

On January 30 we submitted to this committee a formal report of our concerns with proposed subsection 87.7(1) in Bill C-19. The report contained the names of all of our member companies and associations, but I would like to point out that those companies and associations whose names appear on that report represent over 200 separate companies, which are all western Canadian resource-based industries involved in the production, sale and shipment of coal, sulphur, potash, oilseeds, fertilizers, chemicals and forest products. Our members are based in communities throughout the four western provinces.

As our report indicates, we have major concerns with proposed subsection 87.7(1) in Bill C-19. While none of our members are governed by the Canada Labour Act, we are, as major producers of products destined for export through the ports in British Columbia, very much affected by it.

It is the shippers of goods who are grievously affected and harmed by the port closures that stop us from serving our customers. For many of our members, in addition to being unable to ship to our customers there is a huge financial cost and loss of sales, as well as closure and layoffs at some of our plants and operations.

It is therefore vital to the welfare of the resource-based industries in western Canada that those ports are in operation to serve our western industry.

With me today are three of our members who will tell you of the effect of port shutdowns and the industries they represent. They are Mr. Bill LeGrow, vice-president of transportation for West Fraser Mills Ltd. in Vancouver; Mr. Jack McMunn, director of distribution for Canpotex Limited in Saskatoon; and Mr. Mark Mazerolle, director of operations for Sultran Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta.

We'll start with Mr. LeGrow, Madam Chair, then go to Mr. McMunn and then Mr. Mazerolle.

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

Mr. Bill LeGrow (Representative, Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition): Thank you.

I'm vice-president of transportation for West Fraser Mills Ltd. West Fraser has operations in both British Columbia and Alberta, with facilities producing lumber, pulp, paper and medium-density fibreboard. West Fraser is a member of the Council of Forest Industries, and through COFI we participate in the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition.

• 1545

I'm here today to represent the forest industry located in B.C. and Alberta.

Forest products make up the largest industry in British Columbia and the industry is a large and growing part of the Alberta economy. A 1996 Price Waterhouse report identified direct employment in the British Columbia forest industry at 99,100 jobs, with an additional 198,200 jobs in indirect employment. The corresponding figures for Alberta are 18,000 direct and 4,000 indirect jobs.

In 1996 the total value of forest products produced in British Columbia was $16 billion. British Columbia exports, other than to the United States, which is our largest market, were valued at $6.5 billion, or more than 40% of the total. British Columbia forest industry payments to government amounted to $4.2 billion.

Most of our exports are handled at ILWU docks in British Columbia, at both public facilities and privately owned mill docks. Many of our mills are waterlocked or are located in the north, making access to U.S. carriers and ports both difficult and prohibitively expensive. Unlike some other products, which have more competitive options, we have little choice but to wait for the ports to settle.

We are exporters of commodity products that are readily available from other suppliers around the world. As an example, the Scandinavians have doubled their shipments of lumber into the Japanese market in the past two years, largely at the expense of B.C. and Alberta shippers. We enjoy no franchise and we have to compete on service, quality and price for every order.

Canada, and particularly British Columbia, has become a high-cost supplier of forest products in the world marketplace. We have high-cost fibre, we have high-cost labour and we have relatively high-cost transportation. Just the terminal and shiploading portion of the move from mill to market, the portion controlled by ILWU labour, can cost 5% to 10% of the product value.

We're working with our government to try to reduce fibre costs, but that's largely beyond our direct control. We operate some of the most efficient mills in the world and depend on productivity to offset higher labour costs. It's critical that we create an effective and efficient transportation system to ensure that we have competitive access to world markets.

We believe that proposed sub section 87.7(1) of Bill C-19 will result in higher costs in the British Columbia ports, not just for forest products, but for all products, including grain. This result will inevitably happen, because proposed subsection 87.7(1) will give the ILWU a stronger position at the bargaining table.

Under the provisions of this proposed subsection, some employees will continue to work and generate income during a general shutdown on the docks. This work will allow the union the luxury of time, and time is a formidable tool in bargaining if the other side does not have it. The longer the labour disruption lasts, the more pressure is put on the employer to settle, by both his customers and his own financial need. Under these circumstances, the union is likely to negotiate better contracts and the costs will be passed on to shippers.

A consequential problem for the non-grain resource shippers will be the greater damage to our reputation caused by longer labour disruptions. As supply problems grow through a dock shutdown, our customers will lose confidence in our ability to deliver and they will look for new sources of supply. Lost customers or market share are very difficult to recover. In addition, our customers will tend to treat us as unreliable suppliers relegated to spot purchases at spot prices. And we are likely to be the first to be cut back when markets are difficult.

It is true that government intervention in the collective bargaining process is undesirable, but I believe it's also true that this grain exemption is just another form of government intervention. Proposed subsection 87.7(1) is a legislative intervention before the collective bargaining process even begins. This intervention heavily tips the balance in favour of the employee.

• 1550

We believe all resource industries are important to the Canadian economy and all should have equal access to ports to export their products. Choosing one favourite commodity at the expense of the others is a heavy price to pay to get the government off the hot seat. That's what this appears to be about.

On behalf of the forest industry of British Columbia and Alberta, I urge you to recommend removal of proposed subsection 87.7(1) from Bill C-19.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Jack McMunn (Representative, Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition): Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee.

I am the director of distribution for Canpotex Limited. Canpotex is a member of the Canadian Industrial Transportation League, of which I am the chair of the rail committee. Canpotex is also a member of the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition.

Canpotex is the offshore marketing company for the Saskatchewan potash industry. It's a private company owned by the three potash producers in the province of Saskatchewan. Canpotex was formed in 1970 as a producer-owned marketing company, for the sole purpose of selling Canadian potash to offshore markets around the world, offshore meaning all countries outside Canada and the United States.

Canpotex sells potash to more than 25 countries. Its annual sales range exceeds 5 million tonnes per year. Most of this tonnage is moved through the port of Vancouver.

The competitive transportation system has been and remains the key to survival in this industry. The ability of Canpotex to compete in offshore markets on behalf of its member producers will continue to be a function of the cost of producing material and transporting it to the buyer.

For a low-value commodity like potash, distribution costs are the key to being competitive. By the time rail costs, terminal charges, ocean freight and other distribution costs in the country of destination have been totalled, the major portion of the price paid by end user is distribution cost.

Vancouver is the natural port for most of Canpotex shipments, particularly to Pacific Rim countries for the following reasons. It's the closest west coast port to the mines. There is direct rail service from the mines by two major railways. Canpotex has a major potash terminal, Neptune Terminals, which was expanded in 1993 at a cost of $30 million Canadian by adding a 100,000-tonne storage building, complete with what was probably the world's largest portal reclaimer being used for the loading of fertilizer.

Since 1997, Canpotex has also been shipping potash through the U.S. port of Portland, Oregon, on the Columbia River, from a new $70 million fertilizer terminal recently constructed.

There are a number of reasons why Canpotex built a new terminal in Portland rather than in Vancouver. Two of those reasons are as follows. Canpotex experienced a lengthy regulatory delay in obtaining approval of a 1993 expansion of Neptune Terminal in Vancouver. The delay provided a very clear message that it would be prudent to develop options to reduce our dependence on Vancouver. Ports on the Columbia River have a good relationship with the local residents and excellent labour relations with their employees. The port of Portland, for example, has had no labour problems since 1968. Contrast this with Vancouver, where strikes have had an adverse effect on the ability of shippers to service their offshore customers.

The new fertilizer terminal at Portland has the capacity to handle 5 million tonnes of dry bulk product, with further expansion possible. Canpotex plans to move 1.5 million tonnes of product through Portland in 1998. Most of this product used to be shipped through Vancouver. However, Vancouver will still handle over 3 million tonnes of potash through Neptune Terminal.

If we are faced with the situation where product cannot move through Vancouver because of labour disruptions, Canpotex will have no choice but to move more traffic through Portland, Oregon. Proposed section 87.7 of Bill C-19 will, in my opinion, result in just such a situation developing. The damage that will be done to Canada's reputation and ours as a reliable supplier of potash to the world will be significant, as Canpotex will not be able to divert all traffic to Portland. The damage done to Vancouver's reputation, already tarnished, will be irreparable.

There has to be a better solution than proposed subsection 87.7(1) to improve Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier to the Asia-Pacific market.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Mazerolle.

Mr. Mark Mazerolle (Representative, Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition): Good afternoon. I am the director of operations for Sultran Ltd.

Sultran Ltd. is a company owned by Canada's major sulphur producers. It is responsible for the transportation of formed sulphur bound for export markets and the operation of the world's largest sulphur terminal, located on Canada's west coast. As a company, we directly employ more than 100 people and ship in excess of 5.6 million tonnes of sulphur annually through west coast Canadian ports.

• 1555

I appreciate the opportunity to present to you our concerns about the proposed amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code.

For more than 20 years the Canadian sulphur industry has invested tens of millions of dollars into a western Canadian distribution system that is reliable, cost effective and totally dependent upon western Canadian ports. Our distribution system allows Canadian producers to compete as the dominant export suppliers in the world. This enviable position is largely dependent upon the industry's ability to reliably supply product and compete at price levels that are approaching all-time lows.

We have serious concerns over the impact on the Canadian sulphur industry of some of the provisions proposed in amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code. In particular, we believe the proposed exemption of grain from longshore work, as set out in proposed subsection 87.7(1) of the bill, will have a very negative impact on future Canadian exports of all commodities through the west coast of Canada.

The provision affords unprecedented preferential treatment to one export cargo—grain—over all other cargoes. The provision, which requires the longshore industry to provide workers to tie up, load and let go grain vessels in the event of a labour dispute between employers and longshoremen, is discriminatory to all import and export cargoes.

This is a fact that will not be missed by our international customers, nor will it be understood by them that commodities other than grain have been accorded second-class status at the point of export from Canada.

Most west coast port facilities are manned by ILWU labour, who are in a monopoly position. There is no alternative at these facilities to hiring ILWU workers. They bargain collectively as one, for all west coast ports at which they work, through their Canadian area bargaining structure. They bargain with the employers through an umbrella employer group, the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association.

There is a very real sense of a balancing of power between these two large groups, the ILWU Canadian area and the BCMEA, both of which have come about and/or have been encouraged through past actions of the federal government through legislation and other actions. The inclusion of proposed subsection 87.7(1) will destroy the balance, with serious long-term repercussions on all exporters and importers.

Longshoremen are casualized employees dispatched from a central dispatch hall to various employers to meet port work requirements. The working of grain, when there's a labour dispute, as proposed in subsection 87.8(1), allows longshoremen to spread the grain work around. So all longshoremen will earn some wages while non-grain employees remain idle.

Grain work represents about 30% of the total longshore work opportunity on the west coast, so it is large enough to spread around and to have enough to prolong any labour dispute. In the case of west coast ports, the casualized labour arrangements and the opportunity to work cargoes as significant as grain will upset the labour/management balance in a serious way.

The disruption of grain handling has historically been the political hot button for causing government intervention in west coast longshore labour disputes and disruptions. The removal of this hot button by implementing proposed subsection 87.7(1) will prolong west coast labour disputes and will result in much more costly settlements in future.

Western Canadian exports, which are mainly lower-value resource commodities, cannot afford the significant increases in longshore costs. The result will be that many of the commodities will either move to U.S. ports or will not be exported. Either alternative is bad for Canada.

In the case of sulphur, profit margins are such that significant increases in longshore costs will cause sulphur to be stockpiled and not shipped. This occurred in the 1970s when 23 million tonnes were stockpiled in western Canada.

It is recognized that grain is important. So too are all other commodities. The grain sector, as a foreign exchange earner and employer, has been declining for many years in relation to non-grain export sectors. There's no valid argument for providing grain with a higher priority in transportation handling than any other commodity and there are a number of very good reasons why it is not in the interest of Canada to do so.

It is interesting that very few commodities in Canada have the alternatives available in the event of a longshore dispute on the west coast that grain has. These alternatives exist by virtue of appropriate facilities and systems being available to allow grain to move to east coast ports through the seaway system, the U.S. west coast or the U.S. gulf. I know of no other commodity in western Canada that has the options open to it in the event of a longshore dispute that grain has.

There is less need for the intended protection offered in proposed subsection 87.7(1) for grain than any other commodity. As well, it would not solve any of the very real problems that grain has in its handling and transportation system.

• 1600

In conclusion, we propose that if there's a genuine concern about longshore labour disputes on the west coast, then the proposed exemption in proposed subsection 87.7(1) should be extended to all commodities and some form of final offer arbitration should be instituted to deal with unresolved longshore disputes.

Failing that, we ask the exemption proposed for grain in proposed subsection 87.7(1) be removed in the interest of balance and having a fair environment for all import and export commodities.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations, which have made us think across a range of commodities, and even into the certification process.

We'll begin the questioning with Mr. Johnston. Are you ready, Mr. Johnston?

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

We noticed that you touched on the fact that the ILWU members would be able to actually augment their strike with some grain unloading. That's going to have the effect of actually prolonging the strike. Parliament still may be compelled to bring in back-to-work legislation because of other concerns they have with other commodities. So really, this is not, in my opinion, solving anything.

I think you touched on one of my pet subjects, which is having some sort of a dispute-settlement mechanism that wouldn't be commodity specific, but would tend to get agreement in the areas without having a work stoppage.

Certainly, as your brief has pointed out here, we have billions of dollars of sales and shipments that, if lost, are going to certainly going to have a tremendous impact on the Canadian economy.

So we're going to find, I think, that even if Bill C-19 is passed in its entirety, complete with proposed section 87.7, this is not a cure for getting all grain to market. There are a lot of other unions that could stop the shipment of grain. There are a lot of other commodities that could put tremendous pressure on the government.

That's kind of a wide-open question for any of you to field and maybe express your views in that regard.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Would you like to take that one, Mr. Renwick?

Mr. Bob Renwick: I think I'd like to start out, anyway.

I worked in the forest industry for most of my career. For a large part of that time, I was in a pulp and paper operation in Prince George. We encountered absolutely incredibly high costs, lost sales, down time at our mills and lay-offs because of disputes on the waterfront and in greater Vancouver. We just didn't have access to really ship very much to any place else.

It's true that although there was always a lot of political pressure put on by the grain industry to settle strikes, every other resource-based industry was doing that same thing. If grain gets an exemption, the strikes are longer, and the political pressure that will have to come from the rest of Canadian industry will be just as intense as it ever was by prairie farmers, I can assure you of that.

Would any of you would like to add a comment to that?

Mr. Jack McMunn: I have one comment there.

Canpotex has a lot of offshore competition. Russia is the same size as we are in potash, and they are gaining market share on us. They have done this over the last number of years. We have Germany, Israel, and Jordan as a lot of other competition.

It's very good product. It's just as good as ours, and we have to be better in some other way. We have to be better in service, reliability, and dependability. It's that sort of thing.

So, yes, we'd be calling you if there was a strike out there in this province. We don't negotiate with longshoremen ourselves, as we don't have any part to play in it, but we get affected by it.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'd like to defer to my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Well, you only have about 30 seconds left. Wouldn't he rather have his own four minutes?

You can start.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I can start.

Gentlemen, I want to break it down to brass tacks, basically, because I think that's what we have to do for a lot of people here.

• 1605

In Echo Bay Mines, if you lose out in terms of this situation becoming problematic for you on the labour front, what does it mean in terms of other countries or other people getting that business that you currently provide?

As well, Mr. McMunn, I think you've spoken very effectively to the other countries that will take over the provisions, and I'd like to have you all talk to how much money it is going to cost this country, what it's going to cost us in terms of other countries picking up those jobs and those producer spots, and what it's going to mean in terms of other ports getting the business that otherwise would have gone through Vancouver.

Mr. Robert Leclerc: I'll comment by saying I was confining my presentation to just the matter of the right to have a secret ballot, but if you asked me the separate economic question of what the consequence is of being, say, unable by reason of labour issues to conduct business, well, you look for gold and silver, which is what we look for elsewhere, and you would confine yourself to doing just that.

Now, for us, we had a union organization attempt about one and a half years ago at our mine in the Northwest Territories. It was a failed attempt. I said then, as I say now, really I am indifferent as to whether the workers choose to organize or not. It's their decision. If we wound up in a situation where we had a unionized mine and fractious relationships between management and labour, yes, it could result in chaos, but I take a different view.

I am happy to have the bargaining process imposed upon me. I accept that. I seek only one thing: Let the people decide. If they choose a union, so be it, but let them choose.

So for us, it's a bit begging the question. I think I would prefer to say only that we would prefer to do business in an environment where people are given the respect and dignity of being able to make up their minds, and once they've made up their minds, we will happily proceed with them whether they choose a union or not.

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

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to point out to committee members...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): I'll get back to you.

Mr. Rob Anders: Are the others not allowed to respond?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): No, you've used the last minute of your time there and I have to move on, but I'll come back to you. There should have been enough time for four minutes for each questioner.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: First of all, I wanted to point out to committee members that there is no French version of the first witness' brief.

Mr. Leclerc, you seem to have made up your mind on section 46, which deals with unfair practices, among other things. You are a lawyer. The bill and the spirit of the bill recognize the right of association. When a company or an employer restricts its employees' attempts to exercise their right of association by using intimidation, violence or threats against people who want to become unionized, what other forms of action would you wish the government to take in order to set things right and protect that right of association?

Mr. Robert Leclerc: There are other measures that could be included in the bill. For example, you can imprison the head of a company. I know that is an extreme position, but there are other measures as well. I don't think that employees should be penalized for their employers' actions. It's as simple as that, as far as I am concerned. I would prefer there to be another process for deciding on an employer's conduct.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: You don't appreciate the fact that the board established by the government would have a mandate to examine the situation and ascertain whether employees actually wanted to exercise their right of association against the will of their employer, who is using certain means to dissuade them.

• 1610

You don't appreciate the government's conclusion to the effect that the group of employees could have become unionized peacefully if there had been no unfair practices.

Mr. Robert Leclerc: Fine, but then why not have another vote? Is that decision to be made by the Board chair? Personally, I would like to see employees given the opportunity to make that decision. For example, let's say there is a decision to reject the association, then later the courts acknowledge that a manager said something unacceptable or that threats were made, there should be another vote so that employees can determine whether or not they want to form an association. I don't want the courts to be given too much power.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: But I suppose the authors of the Sims Report considered that employees could be intimidated during the vote as well, since this is where we are.

Mr. Robert Leclerc: Nothing is impossible. As far as I'm concerned, you must decide whether you want to leave the final decision up to the courts, or whether you want to give employees freedom of choice. I understand that there are two points of view. It is difficult to find a solution in every case. I understand your point of view.

[English]

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

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): One of the things I noticed in your brief—and it's quite intriguing—is this:

Although none of the WCSC member companies or their employees are governed by the terms and conditions of the Canada Labour Code, they ship products to their customers using the services of companies and their unionized employees which do come under the Canada Labour Code.

First of all, you're in essence speaking here very much from self-interest, in relation to someone else's particular labour problems. Considering the fact that this isn't going to affect you—it does indirectly, as any labour discussion would—would you not agree that somewhere down the line there has to be a process implemented where true collective bargaining does take place?

I think it's been proven over and over again on the west coast that collective bargaining has not occurred for a number of years. In fact, everyone has been using a tool that most corporations I talk to seem to agree do not wish to have happen on a continual basis, and that is a third party entering into the process. No one likes a third party intervening in a corporation's internal affairs, including the relationship between itself and its labour.

Don't you think it's fair that we give these other industry players an opportunity to correct a long-standing problem that is occurring on the west coast? Some people are suggesting third-party arbitration of some kind. That's what back-to-work legislation is. It's a form of third-party arbitration. We've been doing that for years now and it hasn't made anything better; in fact it's made it worse. Most corporations and labour unions will tell you, “If you stay out of it and mind your own business, we'll fix it ourselves”.

The attempt of this legislation is to do just that. Of course, two things may occur. You're right, the first go-around might cause a prolonged strike. Let people have that prolonged strike and work it out. I've never met people who worked for a corporation who wanted to kill their own company, whether they're unionized individuals or not, simply because that's not why people work for a corporation. They go there to make a living, but they want to be treated fairly.

So if it takes one particular long, extended strike to clean this mess up and get back to real collective bargaining, do you not think it's worth it? Or would you prefer to continue the old practice, which you are promoting in your brief, that you'll have a third-party arbitrator stick their nose in your internal affairs without having as good a handle on or understanding of your industry as you would?

• 1615

Because that's what a third-party arbitrator is. Whether we choose the best person in the world, they don't know the intimates of, say, coal, lumber, or pulp and paper. They just doesn't. That's been proven.

So I'd like to know why you're opposed to letting us try to get collective bargaining working again on the west coast.

Mr. Bill LeGrow: I'd like to respond.

First of all, we aren't directly affected in terms of our own labour in our businesses. But don't conclude that means we're not affected. Any action in the systems of distribution we use that affects our cost affects us and in turn affects the whole Canadian economy. So let's be clear about that.

Mr. Robert Nault: Before you go too far, though, let me also say that because you've had third-party arbitrators intervene in your negotiations indirectly for the last number of years, the higher cost you talk about has directly resulted from those arbitrators.

Arbitrators tend to come in, if you take a look at the history of arbitrators, and rule somewhere in the middle. They don't fix a problem, they sort of delay a problem in the short term in resolving it. Isn't that true?

Mr. Bill LeGrow: Let me ask you a question, then.

Mr. Robert Nault: Sure. You're allowed. It's question period.

Mr. Bill LeGrow: Why, if that's the position you're taking...? We've talked about final offer selection and not necessarily open arbitration. The government chose to put final offer selection in the Canada Transportation Act, and it's been my experience that it works. It works because the risk to both parties is so high. You get to say what your position is, I get to say what my position is, and the arbitrator gets to pick one or the other.

Now, if you can think of a system that will force parties to negotiate better than that, and doesn't have these negative side-effects on all the industries that are going to damaged—

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. LeGrow, you should tell people the whole story of how this all works. Final offer arbitrator, at the level you're talking about, is based on a rate people are putting forward. It's the company, being CN or CP, and one of your companies putting in a commercial rate and saying, “Here's the final offer”.

That has nothing to do with negotiation with the labour movement. That's like apples and oranges, for heaven's sake, that's not third-party arbitration.

Mr. Bill LeGrow: That's not what we suggested, though.

Mr. Robert Nault: If you're suggesting that, show me one in any jurisdiction that deals with this particular issue in a negotiation with labour, not a contract between CN or CP and one of you folks. That's how they deal with your dispute, and that's a line rate. That's a very different issue.

If you're coming to the committee trying to argue that, I mean, you're going to have to talk to someone who doesn't know anything about railroads first. I've been doing that all my life.

So that has nothing to do with the labour movement. I'd like to know whether you want us to fix the problem on the west coast or continue the way we are now, where every few years the Government of Canada has to come in and legislate you back to work.

Mr. Dale Johnston: We still will.

Mr. Robert Nault: No, we won't, not if you let them negotiate.

Mr. Bill LeGrow: No, you'll let us hang out to dry.

Mr. Robert Nault: They asked me a question, Madam Chairman. I was just trying to answer it.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Mr. Renwick will respond to that last comment and then we'll move to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Bob Renwick: I guess the difference is, yes, we'd like you to fix the problem on the west coast; we just don't like the way you're proposing to do it.

I'd like to say one thing about the forest industry. Mr. LeGrow touched on it. There is a very advanced forestry industry in a lot of countries in the world today that weren't around 25 years ago. There are advanced industries in Brazil, Chile, New Zealand, Scandinavia—it's always been there—Spain and Portugal and Japan. There's a growing forest product industry in Indonesia that will threaten us.

If we are unable to ship our products to customers around the world, there will be ample opportunity for companies in those other countries, who will be absolutely delighted to take over our customer base. That's what concerns us—getting shut off from our customers.

• 1620

This legislation tells about how important it is to get grain to customers. Well, every other resource-based product in western Canada has exactly that same situation. We can't afford to get cut off either.

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

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The gist I get from most of your presentation, or the common thread, is that you don't like losing lost time to strikes or lockouts, and you're against it, other than the first remarks, which dealt with certification issues and mandatory votes.

I was interested, Mr. Mazerolle, in your comment that your first choice would be to grant the same exempt status to all commodities. I guess your second choice would actually be that nobody should have it, then, using the argument that grain becomes a bargaining chip in the negotiations process and that, having grain taken out of the recipe, the strike could be lengthened or prolonged.

I don't accept that 30% of the workers working, when grain is there to be handled, would motivate a union or even give them enough extra revenue to really continue a strike. I know I wouldn't go into a strike situation without a strike fund that was calculated, if I needed to strike for 6 months, 9 months, or a year, to provide enough money to cover that. I would have the money there first.

As well, those wages aren't for the use of the union to use for the strike. Those employees are earning the wages. You might slap a two-hour assessment on them, as we usually do, so if they work for eight hours a day, two hours of it will go to the strike. But that's still not going to be enough to fund a strike, to lengthen it. I really don't accept that. I'll give you a minute to comment on that point.

As far as the mandatory vote goes, in the first remarks I was very interested to hear what you had to say about the American model. It's probably the most forcefully I've heard it put since we've been on this committee. I don't know if you find it works better in the United States, where there is a mandatory vote, but from a labour point of view we've found that when there's a mandatory vote the rate of applications going forward and being successful dropped really dramatically.

During the intervening period, when the union signs up, say, 80% of the cards and hands them in as proof that these workers want you to represent them, then the board says they'll have a labour-board-supervised vote six weeks later in the employer's plant, in fact in the employer's office. All the employees now have to traipse past the boss, with his door open, staring at them in order to go to the ballot box and vote again.

You've now forced these people to vote twice. How many times are you going to make them vote? Is it until you get it the way you want it? That's not democratic.

We feel that once you've indicated you want the union to represent you by signing a card...and it's a very carefully worded card. The legal language on the card is very specific. I don't accept that either.

On the issue of the automatic certification, when there's the interference, you're saying, “Why not just let them have a vote?” In actual fact, if there has been an interference, a vote won't tell you the true wishes of the employees any more, because the interference has skewed the whole process. They aren't going to answer honestly any more because of fear of reprisals.

The most common threat now, which was used in the Wal-Mart issue and in the Palliser Furniture organizing drive, is, “We're going to close this plant down if you form a union here”. That's an economic hammer workers can't ignore. They get scared, and vote differently.

I don't know if I've used up my whole four minutes, but if you could comment on any of those I'd appreciate it.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Maybe Mr. Mazerolle, seeing as he was named, would like to reply to the first part. Then Mr. Leclerc could respond to the second, if that's fair.

Mr. Mark Mazerolle: With regard to the issue of allocation and sharing of work within the port, 30% of the work content in the port of Vancouver is relative to the handling of grain. Within the ILWU, the total workforce, 50% of those members in the port of Vancouver carry a union card. The balance of the workforce is casualized and do not have a vote.

So you have 50% of the workforce able to access 30% of the work and carry the caucus. It in fact allows those people who have the decision, who actually get to vote in caucus with regard to a particular collective agreement, to gain, on average, what would be at least 60% of their total regular wage.

• 1625

That then allows those people most affected by the settlement to continue to gain income while the balance of those they work with, who do not have a vote, are held out. That's why I believe there's an opportunity within this agreement to allow ILWU members to continue to gain a substantial level of income amongst themselves, while employers are effectively locked out from any source of income.

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

Mr. Leclerc.

Mr. Robert Leclerc: I'll take up Mr. Martin's point on the votes.

First of all, I don't agree that the card constitutes a vote. I think it's a semi-sham. It is an expression of interest tendered at a particular point in time that I would consider to be, at most, a glorified poll. These cards are sometimes picked up in bars, in cars and elsewhere. I attach little significance to them. Philosophically, they are not even close to a vote.

Mr. Pat Martin: You're not allowed to sign a card in a workplace. It isn't valid if you sign it at your place of work, so we have to sign them somewhere.

Mr. Robert Leclerc: Fair enough, but my point stands.

On your matter of voting and where it should be, I couldn't care less. It doesn't have to be at the workplace. If the law says the vote should be taken at a place that is independent, that is absolutely acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

To your second point, about the empirical evidence, I don't think it stands up. I can submit evidence to this committee, if necessary, that will show that in North America, if you have representation votes, it does not follow that the union effort is penalized or compromised. If there's a representation vote, the people speak out. Empirically, I don't think your case is made, but we would need to—

Mr. Pat Martin: We could trade packages.

Mr. Robert Leclerc: —trade packages, so let's demur on that point.

On the matter of clause 46, which I was mildly debating with Mr. Rocheleau, philosophically he and I weren't quite on the same page. I respect that. I maintain that if there is interference, or alleged interference, there are remedies other than ordering certification. I mentioned, not glibly but sincerely, you can put a person in prison. Alternatively, you can impose heavy-duty fines. It gets my attention when it gets to the bottom line. It would also get my attention if you sent me off to jail.

To me, it's a non sequitur. You have interference, and you say, “Voilà, we're now going to send the men off to be certified”? I mean, what the hell? What if you wind up with 15% of the people who are then part of a union and they say they really don't want this?

Mr. Pat Martin: Then they can decertify. Six months later they can file the application and reverse, and decertify. This is why it's not that big a deal.

Mr. Robert Leclerc: Tell that to an underground miner. I mean, these guys—

Mr. Pat Martin: I've worked underground; I know. It's mostly a unionized environment. The unions serve them very well. Frankly, when we worked in the asbestos mines, if it weren't for the union we would never have known it was dangerous, because the company sure wasn't telling us. The union has its place in the mining industry.

Mr. Robert Leclerc: I agree. I have no issue with that.

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

We've saved the last couple of minutes for Mr. Anders, who was cut off short.

Go ahead, Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: As a quick response to something Mr. Martin was saying, there's a brief window for decertification but of course an unlimited amount of time for somebody to try to certify a site.

Aside from that, I'd like to get to the brass tacks. Can you gentlemen please demonstrate for those on the committee...what's going to happen in terms of Oregon, for example, picking up some more of the business, or other competitors in other countries picking up on products and losing Canadian jobs to those offshore producers in your various industries if we have labour disruptions?

That's the brass tacks. That's what these people need to hear.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Jack McMunn.

Mr. Jack McMunn: Mr. Nault, I've been in transportation all my life as well. I'm a bit older than you are, sir, so I probably have as much experience.

• 1630

Yes, it's going to mean jobs. There's an easy way to look at it. For example, if every train we move south is 9,100 metric tonnes, that takes six men, roughly, a longshoremen's crew, eight hours to unload. That's one shift right there. Every one of those we move south is 1.5 million metric tonnes going. Just divide 9,100 into a 1.5 million, and you have the number of shifts lost to Vancouver. That's only the direct jobs. Look at the jobs if you lose other business overseas due to....

In small-town Saskatchewan, for example, you have potash mines located in Esterhazy, Lanigan, and around Belle Plaine. These are people in small towns who are going to lose work if we lose business to the Russians, Israelis, Jordanians and so on. I can't say how many people. I don't know how much damage this bill's going to do. I know it's going to damage us, and it's going to cost jobs.

That's the type of thing you look at. It's going to drive our costs up. It's going to drive up the cost of handling grain in this country.

I've spoken to farmers over the last while and they don't like it, but that's the type of thing it's going to do. It's going to drive their costs up, it's going to drive our costs up, and it's going to cost jobs.

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming and giving us this broader view of your reaction to this bill.

Ladies and gentlemen, the next set of witnesses will be invited to the table. I would caution you in the next round to try not to cross-debate with one another but rather keep your comments between yourselves and the witnesses.

• 1631

• 1637

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): We have two groups in our next round of hearings. One group is from the RCMP. We have the president, Mr. Gaétan Delisle, and members André Girard, James Duggan and Mike Niebudek. The RCMP has made a request to have a picture taken while they're with us.

Is that still standing? Did you bring your photographer?

Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle (President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Members Association): After we finish the meeting, if you like.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much. That would be easier.

Our second group is from the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. We have Gail Lem, vice-president, media, and Robert Hatfield, an organizing director.

Each group has 10 minutes. We'll begin with the RCMP, please.

Mr. Delisle, would you like to begin?

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: Thank you very much for allowing us to be here and to make a presentation.

With me is our representative, Mr. James Duggan, Sergeant André Girard, and Mike Niebudek. At the outset, I would like to say that we are here on behalf of our association and we are here on our own time. We are not here on company time. That's important to note.

[Translation]

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police members' associations are independent associations that represent members of the RCMP from coast to coast. The associations were established with a view to obtaining the right to unionization and access to collective bargaining. I am president of the Quebec RCMP Members Association, as well as President of the national association.

In spite of the short notice and the little time we had to prepare for this meeting, we do appreciate the opportunity to put forward our view on three issues that are of paramount importance to us: one, the right to unionization and access to free collective bargaining for RCMP members; two, the problem of Mr. Paul Lordon's appointment as President of the Canada Labour Relations Board; and three, restriction of RCMP members' freedom of expression.

I'll go right to the first point: the right to unionization and access to free collective bargaining for RCMP members.

• 1640

For over 20 years, members of the RCMP have been fighting for the right to be unionized and for access to collective bargaining. In 1986, an application for accreditation was filed with the CLRB by a very large majority of C Division members, most of whom were in Quebec. This application had the support of RCMP members across Canada. The CLRB rejected it on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction.

RCMP members then contested the constitutionality of Code provisions restricting their right to free unionization and free collective bargaining. After a long and painstaking legal battle, RCMP members now have the opportunity to let the Supreme Court decide whether the Code in fact violates their rights and freedoms. We hope that the Supreme Court will hand down a ruling this autumn.

Unlike members of any other police force in the world, and notwithstanding the similarity of their duties, RCMP members are excluded from the advantages of collective bargaining with their employer. Even the divisional representation program is not independent of the commissioner's authority, and can to some extent be considered the inferior equivalent of a shop union.

To our minds, these divisional representatives are puppets of the RCMP Commissioner. We have heard that they will not be appearing before your committee tomorrow as scheduled to oppose the rights we are demanding.

The associations demand the right to mandatory arbitration, and renounce the right to strike, as provided for in recommendation 440 of the 1968 Woods report, on the basis of which the Code was amended at the time.

Let me draw your attention to the last paragraph on page 9 of the document under tab 2:

There is a fundamental need for RCMP members to be represented by a union without fear of reprisal. RCMP members should have unrestricted freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to be represented by an independent association, and to freely select that association. But an independent association cannot be established without legislative reform. RCMP members' associations therefore request that the task force...

This report was submitted to the Sims task force.

...recommends that Part I of the Canadian Labour Code be amended to extend this application to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I would also draw your attention to the factum submitted to the Supreme Court. We consider that paragraph 191 on page 49 summarizes our position very well:

[English]

Appellant submits that ultimately no balance is struck by the impugned provisions between the public interest in maintaining police services and Appellant's fundamental rights and freedoms.

• 1645

[Translation]

In brief, the Sims Commission and Woods report reveal that there is an imbalance between our rights and the need to maintain public order. This must be clarified.

Our second point is on the problem of Mr. Paul Lordon's recent appointment as President of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Without the association members' recent denunciation of Mr. Lordon's appointment, when at the same time he held the position of chairman of the RCMP Pay Board, the situation would no doubt still appear neutral. Once again, we denounce the fact that Mr. Lordon's expressed position is against the right to free unionization and free collective bargaining for RCMP members, fundamental principles recognized by Parliament in the preamble to the Labour Code, when Mr. Lordon himself is president of the CLRB.

We consider that such statements demonstrate a flagrant lack of openness and impartiality on the part of someone who will one day be involved in examining a certification application by our members. We find it very difficult that such prejudices were not revealed during the process culminating in Mr. Lordon's appointment.

The Supreme Court is now considering those issues, and we find it surprising that the CLRB's current president appears to be making statements on those same issues without having heard us. At the very beginning of tab 4, you will find a copy of the press release. Let me read the statements in the Western Management Consultants document.

[English]

He has great respect for the RCMP. They were having problems with unionized police, and the RCMP saved their bacon. He feels that `maintaining the public order' is very important and assumes the Council wouldn't be dealing with the issue of unionization. He feels it is critical that the RCMP don't unionize.

I repeat, “He feels it is critical that the RCMP don't unionize”.

[Translation]

As far as we know, Mr. Lordon has not yet denied that he made these remarks.

Our third point is that RCMP members' freedom of expression is being restricted. Under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RCMP members have neither the right to freedom of expression, nor the right to freedom of association. They do not even have the right to vote for or against unionization. But suppressing RCMP members' freedom of expression is not a new measure. Members are subject to threats and reprisals when appearing before parliamentary committees like yours, or otherwise openly advocating unionization. In addition, RCMP regulations prohibit any form of political expression.

• 1650

After more than five years' examination of the issue by the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, a report was tabled in the House of Commons and the Senate. The report recommended that articles 56 and 57 of the 1988 Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations be repealed without further ado. The two articles conflict with the rights and freedoms which all citizens are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Allow me to draw your attention to the reports we have submitted. I will read only the conclusion of the report tabled in the House of Commons, though the full report is of great interest. This is the report tabled in the House. You have the report in both official languages in your documents.

[English]

Your Committee recommends that sections 56 and 57 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988 be revoked without delay, and that as soon as it is in a position to do so, the Government present to the Houses [both Houses, in this case] amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which would define the limits of permissible political participation by members of the Force in a manner consistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all citizens by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Mr. Delisle, you're about two minutes over your time. Have you just about finished?

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: I have just about finished, madame la présidente.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Please be quick.

[Translation]

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: Among the documents we have provided, you will also find a special edition of the publication Action, in which, as requested by the former Minister of Labour, we indicated how Part I of the Labour Code would have to be amended in order to give RCMP members access to collective bargaining. I am not going to read this document now, since you all have a copy. It contains the findings of very in-depth research. You will find both grounds for and recommendations relating to our proposed amendments.

In conclusion, we would ask members of your committee to protect the well-being of thousands of RCMP members, who are all citizens of this great country, and ensure that they too are covered by recognized, fair and equitable labour relations standards. RCMP members are a symbol of democracy, and have every right to be subject to the standards set forth in Part I of the Labour Code.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are ready for your questions.

[English]

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

We'll now hear a presentation from the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. I don't know if it will be Ms. Lem or Mr. Hatfield, but one or the other, please.

Ms. Gail Lem (Vice-President, Media, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Today I'm joined, as you know, by Bob Hatfield, the director of organization for our union.

We have with us a brief outlining our position on Bill C-19. I have given a copy to the clerk. I will not read the brief but confine my remarks today to a brief overview of the main points we've raised. If there is time later, we will be happy to answer any questions.

I'd like to begin by telling you a little bit about our union. CEP is one of the largest unions in Canada. We have approximately 150,000 members across the country, and roughly one-third of those are in the federal jurisdiction.

• 1655

Our members covered by this bill work for employers such as Bell Canada, the majority of the Stentor companies, and West Coast Energy. We also work at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and all of the major broadcasting companies, such as CanWest Global, CHUM, Baton, and so on. We're in trucking companies such as Emery Worldwide, W.J. Mowat Trucking, Kindersley Transport, Maple Leaf Mills and Purolator Courier in Quebec.

As members of this committee know, the CEP is affiliated to the Canadian Labour Congress, and our union played a role in formulating the CLC position on this bill.

The CLC's brief on the material contained in this bill was presented to the commons committee in December 1996. Our purpose today is to reiterate and underline a number of themes covered by that presentation and to suggest some ways in which the legislation before you could be strengthened.

Many of the elements of this bill came out of a process of consultation with both unions and employers, and represent a labour-management consensus on some key issues.

This does not mean that we like everything in the bill or that it contains everything we would have liked to see there. In our view, it's neither a perfect or a complete bill, but on balance, we support the speedy passage of this legislation.

Our comments today are directed at strengthening the bill, and we hope that you will incorporate our suggestions for improvements and work to see it enacted as soon as possible.

I'd like to summarize for you our view on the major elements of the bill.

The first item is the new labour board. We welcome the creation of the new Canada Industrial Relations Board, which will be a represenational board. This is an area where I think it's worth pointing out that there was strong labour-management consensus throughout the consultation process leading up to this bill.

Our concerns about the new board fall into two broad areas—appointments and qualifications. Both labour and management recommended that a labour-management selection panel should review and advise on the names of persons appointed or reappointed to the chair and vice-chair positions.

We would hope that in practice some method is worked out to ensure that persons appointed to these positions have the respect and support of both labour and management. The bill, however, is silent on this, and that causes us some concern.

There's a similar problem with the appointment of members. Labour and management recommended that members be chosen from among those included in a list of names supplied by the parties, but the bill refers only to consultation with the organizations representative of employers and employees that the minister considers appropriate.

While the bill refers to the need for the chair and vice-chair to have experience and expertise in industrial relations, it makes no similar point with respect to the members.

We feel as well—and this is important—that language and equity issues should be taken into account in making appointments to the board. We suggest that you consider some method of reflecting equity issues in the bill.

On the board's powers, we have some concerns about proposed section 18.1, which deals with the power of the board to review the structure of bargaining units. In our view, the language used here could allow employers to interfere with the rights of workers to choose their own bargaining representatives.

In summary, we feel that the provisions in this bill for a new board represent an improvement. We support them. However, they could be made better if the suggestions I've just referred to, which are contained in our brief, were incorporated.

I'd like to address the issue of replacement workers. Certainly, along with the rest of the labour movement we are very disappointed that the bill does not contain a general prohibition on the use of replacement workers. We believe nearly 20 years of experience with anti-scab legislation in the province of Quebec amply demonstrates that they work to the benefit of everyone.

The use of replacement workers producers longer and more bitter conflicts, more strikes and lockouts, and more confrontations. It makes productive collective bargaining more difficult. It creates problems in issues that may linger and affect both the quality of labour-management relations and the efficiency of the employer's operations in the future.

• 1700

While the board has some power to limit the use of replacement workers, this provision falls far short of what we think is needed. A clear and unambiguous prohibition against the use of replacement workers during strikes and walkouts would improve the bill immensely and would contribute to an improved labour relations climate in the federal jurisdiction.

Certification procedures. In our view speedy disposition of certification applications is a critical issue. Speedy decisions on this matter contribute to healthy labour-management relations and allow the parties to get on with building a positive relationship.

We support the provision for single-member panels and the new time limit for panel decisions. These are improvements.

We also support, with one reservation, the provision that allows the board to give automatic certification to a union if there is evidence of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. The section requires that the board satisfy itself that:

but for the unfair labour practice, the trade union could reasonably have been expected to have had the support of a majority of the employees in the unit.

Since unfair labour practices are in fact likely to interfere with the ability of the union to determine the wishes of employees in this matter, the reasonable expectation requirement should be dropped.

Another certification issue that concerns us is the requirement for a $5 sign-up fee in order to validate a union membership. The bill does not cover this issue and it is within the power of the board to set this fee. In our view, the act of signing a membership card for a union is an important act whether or not it is accompanied by the payment of a fee, and it would be useful if the committee were to make this point in its report on the bill.

I would like to deal with the issue of successor rights. As a general principle the Canada Labour Code should shield workers from having their bargaining rights extinguished by decisions made by other people without their participation or consent. In order for this to happen the code should incorporate clear and unambiguous comprehensive successor rights. The amendments in this bill, in our view, do not do this, although there are some parts we do support.

Beyond the measures included in the bill, the Canada Labour Code needs to deal with situations where contracted work is tendered and given to another contractor, to franchise operations, to situations where operations move from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Staff Relations Act to the Canada Labour Code and to situations where operations are being run by bankruptcy trustees and receivers.

Off-site workers. In November 1997, when the bill was tabled, CLC executive vice-president Nancy Riche made the following comment, which we would like to reiterate:

We are pleased that the bill recognizes that work settings, such as homes, away from traditional work sites are, in fact, workplaces. This will provide workers in a non traditional work setting with the same labour law protection as their counterparts in the firm or factory. This includes requiring the employer to recognize employees' rights to freedom of association by providing trade unions the opportunity to access these employees and end their isolation.

We realize that the final say on how this provision will be used is with the new board and that it could place some limits on unions' access to information. Nevertheless, we support the change, and we will be pressing the board to interpret it in a broad sense.

Employer interference. Section 94 of the Canada Labour Code prohibits employers or their agents from interfering with the formation of a union, or the representation of employees by a union or with the administration of a union. It is a section that we take very seriously, since it offers unions and their members protection from coercion, intimidation or other improper influence.

Proposed paragraph 94(2)(c), an addition to the code, makes it clear that the employer has the right to communicate their views on these matters to the employees.

In our view, this is a troubling departure from the previous practice of strict neutrality and will invite more interference by employers during an organizing drive. We urge you to change this section.

Vote on the employer's most recent offer. We are very disappointed that the bill does not repeal section 108 of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with mandatory votes on the employer's most recent offer.

• 1705

This section of the code represents an unwarranted intrusion into the collective bargaining process by a third party, and it is not likely to contribute to healthy industrial relations.

An amendment to the bill repealing this section of the code would be welcomed by the labour movement and by all those who value free collective bargaining.

Repeal of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. In our view, it would approve the rights and working conditions of members of the federal public service if the Public Service Staff Relations Act was repealed and workers under its jurisdiction were placed under the Canada Labour Code. The PSSRA limits the ability of public sector workers to negotiate all the terms and conditions of their work.

A comment on this issue by the members of this committee would be welcome.

I'm very close to the end here.

As for other aspects of the bill, there are a number of other issues that we generally endorse. This includes the provision that employees hired or reassigned after notice of bargain is given or when the operation is on strike or under a lockout are not to be considered members of the bargaining unit.

As well, we support the clarification of the rights of employees to be reinstated after a strike or lockout. We endorse the reference in the bill to single-stage conciliation, and we support the principle that first agreements settled by the board should have a duration of two years.

We do not, however, endorse proposed subsection 87.3(1), which raises the possibility that multiple strike votes may be needed under some circumstances.

In our view, one strike vote is all that's required.

In conclusion, let me note that the provisions of this bill represent a considerable investment of time and resources on the part of both labour and management. The investment was justified by the importance to us of having a workable, modern labour code to govern collective bargaining in the federal jurisdiction.

We have suggested places where this bill can be improved, and we of course urge you to make the changes that we have suggested.

We have suggested areas where we have concerns. We would also urge you to take those concerns seriously in the interests of improving the climate for collective bargaining in the federal sector.

Finally, we would urge you to work for the speedy passage of the bill so that the positive provisions and any improvements you are able to make to it can come into force as soon as possible.

Thank you.

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

We'll now proceed to questions of clarification by the members of the committee. We'll start with Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'd like to congratulate—and I don't know if “congratulate” is the word—the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada for giving an even more impassioned appeal for strengthening Bill C-19 than did Buzz Hargrove by repealing the whole idea of votes on the employer's final offer.

I'm going to ask three or four questions, and then afterwards you can respond.

To the CEP, I have a difficult time understanding why even in the case where you wouldn't reasonably have signed up a majority of workers.... I know you're going to bring forward the idea that somehow employers would have circumvented this process or made it difficult. You recommend tossing aside the reasonable expectation of having signed up a majority. That should be just tossed out the window, and certification should be automatic.

If you can prove you signed up—bear with me—three employees on a site of let's say 1,000, and if you can prove that the employer somehow was involved with the sign-up of a third employee, you'd automatically certify that site according to what you've presented here today.

I'm sorry, but that just goes over and above anything I can consider as reasonable.

With regard to the RCMP Members Association, I have a few questions.

First, I understand that you're already represented in terms of the divisional staff relations representative program.

Second, as for any areas where you have any members or people who would indicate support—I understand that basically it's the lower mainland of B.C. and Quebec—there's not much support for this outside of these jurisdictions.

Third, what would be the cost in terms of union dues to the RCMP staff on average? Do you think that therefore people who right now are not represented by the Canadian Police Association, for example, should be forced to go ahead and give their dues over when they've been content for years to not be represented by them? What are your thoughts on that?

• 1710

Ms. Gail Lem: Mr. Anderson, I've been involved in many organizing drives over the last two decades, most of them in the media. I can assure you—and I know you know this—that people's jobs, their livelihoods, are critical to them. Sometimes their right to join unions is heavily, extremely affected by the fear of losing their jobs.

Perhaps my colleague would like to also respond to this question, but when you have a law that says the employer may not coerce, intimidate, harass, discipline or dismiss an employee for union activity, but you then allow an employer to do any of those particular things, it is absolutely insane to think it doesn't have any effect on the employees in that workplace. If the employer takes these actions after you've only signed up perhaps three of a thousand workers, you can bet that the climate of fear that is created by the employer is going to affect the rest of the organizing drive.

It's impossible to think about reasonable expectation when you allow an employer to cross that line, and I can tell you, there is a fine line between intimidation and the employer being permitted to express an opinion. There is a very fine line when you're an employee.

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

Could the representative of the RCMP handle the second question, please?

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: Yes, I will answer two portions, and then Monsieur Niebudek will answer on behalf of the Ontario people he represents.

First, you were talking about a system that we all know, which is the div-rep system. I am an elected div rep. Monsieur Niebudek is also an elected div rep, as is Monsieur Girard.

When the div-rep system was first imposed, there was never any request to membership as to whether or not they wanted a union or a div rep. It was put in place by the employer, the RCMP. I can tell you the approximate the cost for the div-rep system. In very general terms, going only on pay and travel and everything, it is a cost of well over $3 million to the taxpayers. I can also tell you that's only a small portion of it, because the pay council budget for the last two years that they've been in place is almost $1.5 million. That's how much it costs to the taxpayer.

My answer is that it will cost nothing to the taxpayer if we have that right to choose. At present, we don't even have that right. That's what we're asking you for here.

Mr. Rob Anders: How much will it cost employees?

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: Actually, I don't know. I guess it all depends on what the dues are set at. I guess I will not speak for the other people, but I do believe that in every union it's the employees who decide their dues. I'm not aware of any employer who will say this is how much it's going to cost

[Translation]

to belong to a union. I don't think any employer will say that.

[English]

But the mere fact of it is, please, give us that possibility without fear of reprisal. I hope we are being clear. Because right now, we cannot do that. We have regulations in place that prohibit us from doing that.

• 1715

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

Corporal Mike Niebudek (Ontario President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Members Association): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm the president of the Ontario RCMP association, representing over 820 members of the RCMP who, as I always say, represent a portion of the members in Ontario but do represent the portion that is not afraid of reprisal.

As far as the div-rep program we have right now, I am also a div rep in A division here in the national capital region, representing almost 800 members of the RCMP. I've just begun my second term this year. I can tell you, comparing the div-rep program with collective bargaining is like comparing oranges with apples.

The div-rep program is there to ensure that staff relations between management and the members go smoothly. We do not have any mandate to collectively bargain for the members. We do not have any mandate to make legal representations in the sense of bargaining for them. Therefore, a very large number of members in Ontario adhere to the association and at the same time would certainly welcome the ability to choose another system of representation, be it an association or a union, call it what you want.

The div-rep program, as mentioned by my colleague, is fully financed by the public. There are 28 full-time div reps, with an average salary of $65,000 a year. The div reps enjoy, as I do, a job that doesn't.... It's a full-time job as far as staff relations is concerned. So when you hear of other divisional representatives across the country who want to so protect this program, it appears they also want to protect their full-time jobs as div reps, which is something that certainly concerns me.

I've always said that because 22 or 23 or 24 div reps in Canada do not agree to unionization, this is not a reason not allow the membership—the 17,000 members we represent—to choose for themselves.

As Mr. Delisle was mentioning in his presentation, Mr. Lordon has somewhat mixed up maintaining the public order with collective bargaining, which is, in my view, absolutely ridiculous. This would mean that every other police force in this country that has the right to collectively bargain is not doing its job as far as maintaining order.

He cannot mix the two. We are professionals. Our members are professionals. All they're asking for is the opportunity to be able to choose a system of representation that they could finance and control. Some of them just want to sit down with the employer.

As far as choosing between the div-rep program and the collective bargaining unit option, they do not have that option right now because we are prohibited by the code. We cannot go to the membership and really get a sense of what they want. We're not allowed to. How could we offer something to the members that they're not allowed to have in the first place?

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

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I have three questions, Mr. Delisle.

Could you tell us approximately when and in what context Mr. Lordon shared his opinions, the opinions set forth in this paragraph? That is my first question.

Second, in your brief, you say—and your colleague has just used those same words—that RCMP members are subject to threats and reprisals when they appear before parliamentary committees or otherwise openly advocate unionization.

• 1720

If it is possible, I would ask you to elaborate on that.

Thirdly, can this desire to become a union be viewed as a matter of principle, or is your claim also based on arbitrary and unfair decisions on the part of RCMP management? I am not prejudging anything here.

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: There are several questions and we will try to proceed quickly.

The first has a direct link with a firm that was hired by the RCMP to make a choice among the various candidates that had applied for the position of chairman of the RCMP Pay Board. That was in 1996-97 and towards the end of 1995. These comments and reports refer to a meeting on that.

As for your second question, I am pleased that you raised the subject, because Ms. Chamberlain is on this committee and she sat on the committee to which I reported the accusations made by the members of the RCMP themselves. A commission of inquiry was set up and I testified at length during the discussions on the famous Bill C-58. I hope you remember that.

[English]

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): I do. Oui.

[Translation]

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: Isn't that correct? Thank you. I hope you are the one who made the decision.

Then I was suspended without pay, charged internally, found innocent of all charges and reintegrated into the RCMP. It was because I had dared, as president of the association, to clamour for the right to collective bargaining. As my colleague explained earlier, the division representatives are there, indirectly, to ensure we don't have the right to collective bargaining.

I hope I answered quickly enough. Indeed, there are examples to support my answer. Thank you.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Is it merely a question of principle? Do you have examples?

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: If you want examples of arbitration, I am a typical example. The famous report on the unconstitutionality of the Act was tabled, on regulation 57. Even though the RCMP knew it was unconstitutional, they nonetheless chose to suspend me without pay, and considered that direct action; in other words, it was a legal or illegal order. That type of thing happens regularly.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Let's say the employer, in this case the government, says that even if other police corps are unionized, the RCMP cannot be because it has a special status since it is our national guard. Is that a valid argument or not?

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: I will give the floor to Mr. Duggan.

Mr. James Duggan (Legal Counsel, Association of Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police): My name is James Duggan and I am the Association's attorney.

The RCMP has been using that argument since 1918. We now know that the RCMP is an organization that even the commissioner at the time had described as a corporation that provides police services similar to those provided by other police corps. The RCMP provides contract police services. Over 50% of the RCMP staff provides police services. So this idea that the RCMP is unique and special in its nature is quite a fallacy. We all know that the red serge is an emblem for Canada, but in fact, the people before you today provide the same type of services as the unionized police corps.

• 1725

A relatively small percentage of RCMP services are only federal. In fact, those services are very similar to those provided by customs officers or to other services provided by unionized people. I hope that answers your question.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): A real quick one.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: You provide services in many provinces except Ontario and, if I'm not mistaken, Quebec. I am not familiar with labour relations in Ontario, but would you be satisfied with a relationship similar to the one between the Sûreté du Québec and the Quebec government?

Mr. James Duggan: For the case pending before the Supreme Court, we did a study of Canada's police corps whose officers are unionized. You can see that in Ontario, for example, police officers provide the same type of service as the contract police officers the RCMP has working in other provinces, such as British Columbia.

We also studied the police corps in the United States, England, Ireland, Italy and Germany. In every country we found federal police corps whose members can form a union and do collective bargaining with their employer. Canada is making an exception with the RCMP. I am talking about countries who do not all have freedom of association included in their charters of rights and freedoms.

[English]

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

Mr. Martin, you have a couple of minutes left if you'd like to jump in.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay. I have a brief question for the RCMP representatives.

Is this case going to the ILO? Have you gone to the International Labour Organization with this to challenge the Canadian government to recognize...?

Mr. James Duggan: No, not yet. We're waiting for the hearing before the Supreme Court. The brief is in the material you've been supplied with. As Gaétan Delisle said, we're hopeful that the case could be heard in the fall.

Mr. Pat Martin: Given the jurisdiction of this panel, what specific amendments to the code could give you satisfaction? Has that been thought through—

Mr. James Duggan: There could be.

Mr. Pat Martin: —in a clause-by-clause way? I did flip through the magazine and saw it in clause language there. Is that what you're recommending?

Mr. James Duggan: There are two ways to go. It could be done by a simple amendment to the article of the code that says the code does not apply to the RCMP. This could be simply abrogated.

It could also be done this way. At the request of Minister Gagliano at the time, with considerable time and effort, we drafted a complete legislative amendment, which you'll find in this paper. It's bilingual. It starts on page 1, and it completely revises the Canada Labour Code to provide for collective bargaining for members of the RCMP.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's great. I'll give that a closer look.

I want to thank you for a very thoughtful and very balanced presentation. I thought it was excellent work, and it makes me proud as a trade unionist when I see work of that calibre coming forward. It should be an educational thing too. I hope it will be kept.

Here are my questions. I'm glad you raised the idea of being able to use a single chair to try to clean up some of the backlog of applications for certification, but I'd like to hear what other type of cases you might see being suitable for a single chair rather than a full panel.

Because I think I'm running out of time, I'll also say that as for the $5 sign-up fee, you're one of the first to really identify that as a barrier. Could you elaborate on that? Why in cases of applications to certify do you have to keep proving and reproving that you really do want to join the union, whereas you can buy a house with just signing your name? You have to overstate your interest in this case.

Would you like to elaborate on both of those things?

• 1730

Ms. Gail Lem: The $5 sign-up fee was something that went by the wayside in Ontario not very long ago. It's simply something that seems rather archaic. It causes a lot of these little problems. You're always asking people whether they have their money. If they say no and you can't lend it to them, you ask them whether they can borrow it from someone else.

Then the no-pay allegations can be quite frivolous, but it can throw your whole organizing drive into doubt if you lost a $5 bill somewhere.

It's really an archaic thing. People should be accepted at their word and be able to sign a union card, and that should be the end of it.

With respect to the single chair, we see this happening increasingly in industrial relations, such as before arbitration boards and so on. If you appointed qualified and respected individuals who have the respect of both parties, this is increasingly the way to go just because of the lengthy time it takes to have multiple-person panels.

This is very clear in labour relations now. Almost always, both the union and the employer will, for example, go to expedite arbitration and ask for a single chair rather than a panel.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown): Thank you very much for your presentations and for the tremendous packages you gave us on a variety of angles of your position. I thank you all.

I remind the members of the committee that we reconvene here at 6:30 p.m.

The meeting is adjourned.