[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 21, 1996
.1536 
[English]
The Chairman: I call this meeting to order and welcome the Minister of Labour.
As everyone knows, we are here to review Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Minister, as this is your second appearance in less than a couple of months before this committee, I'd like on behalf of the members to welcome you. This is a very important piece of legislation, one this particular committee takes quite seriously.
As you know, we basically operate in this fashion: you have approximately 10 to 15 minutes to say what you have to say, and then we'll get to the question and answer session. We'll do that on a rotational basis.
Once again, welcome. I'd also like to welcome Mr. Michael McDermott, senior assistant deputy minister, legislative review, and Johane Tremblay, project officer, legislative review.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all the members for giving me this opportunity to be before you this afternoon. I would also add that besides the two officials you just introduced with me, Mr. Chairman, at the back of the room there are other officials in case you need them for answering your questions. They are Debra Robertson, project director, Linda L'Heureux, also a project officer, and Philip Smith, director of Statistics Canada for the CALURA part of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join your committee today as you begin consideration ofBill C-66, which will amend Part I of the Canada Labour Code and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
The amendments contained in this bill reflect the changes that the collective bargaining environment has experienced since the early 1970s, the last time the Code was the subject of an in-depth review.
Our government is committed to creating the proper environment for economic growth and job creation. Bill C-66 is driven by that commitment.
The modernization of the rules governing labour relations under federal jurisdiction through changes to Part I of the Canada Labour Code was identified in this year's Throne Speech as appropriate action to promote a proper climate for economic growth and jobs. It was also identified as such in the government's report, Building a More Innovative Economy.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, we have started from the principle that the Canada Labour Code has done a good job. Our amendments will ensure that it continues to do a good job into the next century. WithBill C-66, the government is proposing nine types of amendments. I would like to deal with each one of these nine groups in turn.
.1540
First there is the administration of the Canada Labour Code. These amendments cover a number of different issues. First, we plan to establish the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This new board was discussed in some detail during the House of Commons debate, so I will not dwell on it in this presentation. However, I will be glad to answer your questions. I will only reiterate that the new board has the support of both labour and management groups. It will be a more efficient and effective vehicle for addressing labour disputes.
Another set of amendments coming under this heading will change the role of the federal mediation and conciliation service, especially recognizing its important role in giving new power to the head of the service.
[Translation]
Other amendments will repeal the need for the consent of the Minister before an allegation of bad faith bargaining can be filed with the Board; grant a number of procedural powers to grievance arbitrators to make the grievance arbitration process more efficient; and require that the Minister of Labour meet periodically with trade union and employer representatives, as well as with labour relations experts.
The second category of amendments is: ``The acquisition, termination, modification and continuation of bargaining rights''.
One of the more important amendments in this group provides that when an undertaking moves from provincial to federal jurisdiction, both the bargaining rights and the collective agreement will be carried over.
[English]
Another amendment has to do with successive contractors. This amendment deals with employers succeeding another as the provider of certain services to the air transport industry. Here we are proposing that such an employer pay employees performing this service the same that employees of the previous contractor were entitled to receive under the terms of the collective agreement.
Also, the code will explicitly recognize the right of employers to communicate with employees, provided that the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.
Secondly, an amendment will allow the Canada Industrial Relations Board to issue an immediate certification if, in an effort to discourage unionization, an employer commits an unfair labour practice.
The third group of amendments is described as multi-employer collective bargaining. These amendments are designed for those cases where employers and unions seek to move from the one-union one-employer model of negotiations to a broader-based arrangement where a group of employers negotiates with one or more unions. The amendments are designed to make the existing collective bargaining system more flexible.
As well, regarding the issue of multi-employer bargaining in the longshoring industry, the amendments will codify existing jurisprudence concerning the choice or removal of an employer's representative. They will also make explicit provision for the latter to assess the individual employers for the costs incurred in doing its work.
The fourth category is related to the bargaining cycle. A primary objective here is to reduce delays in the collective bargaining process. These amendments cover such things as extending the period of serving notice to bargain from three months to four months; establishing a streamlined, single-stage conciliation process; and the requirement for secret ballot strike and lockout votes.
[Translation]
The fifth category has to do with ``First agreement arbitration''. As you may know, the statute empowers the Minister of Labour to direct the Board to inquire into a first contract dispute.
The Board then has the discretion to arbitrate the terms of the collective agreement which is required to last one year. We are suggesting that this term be extended to two years. Our view is that this extension will give the parties more time to develop a positive relationship before having to recommence bargaining.
Our government believes that, at the beginning of a labour-management relationship, the parties need time to adjust to the new realities and to become familiar with the requirements of collective bargaining.
[English]
The sixth set of amendments comes under the heading of rights and obligations during a work stoppage. One of these amendments will ensure that workers can return to their employment at the end of a work stoppage in preference to persons who may have performed their work while they were on strike or locked out.
.1545
Another will provide that disputes about employee discipline or dismissal which arise during a work stoppage when the collective agreement is not in force should be settled by arbitration.
A third covers the right of employees to maintain insurance or similar benefit programs during a work stoppage. Others deal with the certification and de-certification of unions during a strike or lockout.
[Translation]
The most contentious issue we have to deal with in this reform process had to do with replacement workers.
I will say that the position adopted by the government has been generally endorsed as a workable compromise by both labour and management. On such a controversial question it shall never be possible to satisfy everyone.
However, I believe the solution proposed in Bill C-66, allowing the use of replacement workers under certain conditions, comes closest to addressing the needs of both parties.
[English]
The seventh category of amendments has to do with essential services. Under this heading, parties involved in a work stoppage will have to ensure services that have an impact on public health and safety are maintained.
The eighth group deals with grain handling, longshoring, and other port activities. I'm very happy to be introducing changes that will protect the grain industry, an industry essential to the economic health of western Canada.
Finally, there is a grouping called ``The Scope of Collective Bargaining''. Under this amendment, labour unions would be able to contact employees who normally work in locations other than the employer's premises. Such access would take place only under conditions that ensure the privacy and security of off-site workers would be protected. This amendment is submitted because of the growth of non-standard employment. Through this reform the benefits of collective bargaining may be distributed more widely.
Finally, I would like briefly to address another element of this bill, the clause on the Corporations and Labour Union Returns Act, or CALURA. CALURA was passed in 1962. Under part II of the act Statistics Canada collects information on nearly every major labour union in Canada. However, Statistics Canada has found a more cost-effective way of collecting the information. More importantly, the information gathered under the proposed system could result in a more accurate picture of the role of unions in the Canadian labour market.
Statistics Canada proposes to obtain its information directly from Canadian workers. It will add questions on union membership to the labour force survey and the survey of labour and income dynamics. This move will save Canadian taxpayers $300,000 a year and the updated information will be more useful.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize what these amendments will achieve. As a result of these changes, labour and management will be able to resolve their differences in a more efficient, more positive environment. Better labour relations are good for everyone: employers, employees and all Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. Now we will move to the question and answer session. We'll begin with Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Mr. Chairman, I would like to join you in welcoming the Minister and his officials. I would like to give him the assurance of our collaboration when desirable, but also remind him of the old German philosopher's principle, which is that speed is the enemy of intelligence, and our responsibility is thus to ensure that all those who want to be heard during this process will be able to sit at the table.
I have six questions for the Minister and I will try to put them in two blocks and start with the first three.
The Minister knows that in the past there was a lot of criticism concerning the appointments to the defunct Canada Relations Board and that beyond the change in the name we do hope that this quasi judicial tribunal will become something that is a true reflection of equal representation in labour relations.
Mr. Chairman, I thought I understood that in the Sims Report there was a rather clear recommendation to the effect that not only should appointments come equally come from both sides but that inspiration should come from lists presented by the parties.
In reading the bill, I found that there was a rather vague provision concerning the Minister's obligation to consult the parties. Of course, consulting parties does not automatically mean that one finds inspiration in the lists they provide.
.1550
Could the Minister tell us how heavily he will count on inspiration from those lists and what he intends to be the scope of this provision in the Act?
Rather clear representations have been made to us as well as the Minister also, I am sure, to the effect that the Public Service Alliance of Canada would like to be subject not to the Public Staff Relations Act which deprives it of a certain number of rights in particular in areas of appointments, demotions and few other very specific provisions, but rather to the Canada Labour Code. This demand has been on the table for ten years. It's nothing very new. I was surprised to see the Minister remaining silent on the subject.
As we're speaking of omissions, the same goes for the RCMP. The Minister knows the Official Opposition has lead the charge on this one, that we tabled a motion that was debated in the House and that all the members of this committee are conscious of the fact that the RCMP is the only police corps in the whole country that does not have access to collective bargaining.
Through its union representatives, they were asking for a formula that we thought respected the balance that one should be looking for in this case. They were asking for the rights to bargain without a right to strike with binding arbitration, something like what is found in the union environment.
Finally, Minister, I get the impression that in the area of replacement workers, you did not carry out your reform impulse to the very end and you rained yourself in somewhat. You would have found it very useful to seek information on what has been done in Quebec and identify the use of replacement workers, as the Canada Labour Congress was asking... In the Canada Labour Code, there are seven very clearly identified unfair practices and I believe it would have been interesting to see an eighth one concerning the use of replacement workers. I would like you, to the best of your knowledge, to explain very clearly how the Canada Industrial Relations Board is going to interpret this provision of the Act, how it is going to work and if you get the impression you have satisfied the unions.
Mr. Gagliano: Concerning the appointments to the new Canada Industrial Relations Board, I can say that as soon as I was appointed Minister of Labour, during the first meetings with employer associations and the Canada Relations Board, I had already given assurances that there would be equal participation. In my opinion, and my officials may correct me, the bill as you have it before you provides that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will be made of an equal number of members chosen in consultation with the employer side and the unions and the government will appoint the other party, the neutral party that will be made up of experts from the academic world.
I have not yet had the opportunity to make any appointments, because the Bill provides for a decrease in the number of members. Had I made any, they would have been made in consultation with those I call the partners: employers, unions and the neutral party, in other words labour relations practitioners.
As for the public service, there's a whole slate of things. What are our commitments? There was a chapter in the Sims report on that concerning the Public Service Staff Relations Board. In consultation with my colleagues, the President of Treasury Board and the President of the Privy Council, who are the two people responsible for that part of the Labour Code applying to the Public Service, except for Part I, we are looking at the possibility of blending the two boards and coming up with a single labour relations board.
.1555
When we manage to attain that objective, it will be easier to place the whole Public Service under the Canada Labour Code. There is much work to be done in that area. There is a lot of legislation affected and many departments are involved.
We're taking steps in the right direction. I had the choice of delaying the introduction of this bill, which I think is progressive, and wait until all that work had been done. In my opinion, this part of it sets us off in the right direction and I hope that later on we'll be able to take care of the rest.
As for the RCMP, I think I have complied with the recommendation of the Sims group who clearly stated that the RCMP should not come under the Canada Labour Code.
What am I doing, with this Bill? I am amending the Canada Labour Code. What did Sims say? He said the government should examine the RCMP situation and make sure to provide a framework that would allow people to make representations and engage in bargaining.
I know that my colleague the Solicitor General is working at this with the RCMP commissioner and the staff representative. I have met with members of the RCMP. They have made their representations and I made note of them but I believe I have complied with the Sims Report recommendation.
I believe the Solicitor General is now seriously working to improve relations within this very special police corps. This is not a police corps like all others.
As for replacement workers, we have to stop today and look at what labour relations are in the present context. In the 70s, the situation wasn't the same. In any case, in the Sims Report, that's the only chapter where there is a majority and a minority position. There was consensus on all the rest.
Last May and April I personally travelled around different areas in the country and positions have not changed. No one is budging. What are we suggesting? I think, this is reasonable progress and that the present context does allow for harmonious relations. I met the union and I must say it did exert pressure. I'm not going to change its minds and I am sure that it will come before this committee and ask you to amend the bill to prohibit the use of replacement workers, but I must admit that this was the best consensus we could arrive at.
Now, how do you define an unfair practice? I could have used certain examples taken from the Labour Code quota or precedents, but I think the new Industrial Relations Board which will be representative of both parties and also have someone neutral, will allow both parties to make sure that the cases concerning replacement workers presented to the board will be considered in a neutral and objective fashion as both parties will have equal representation on the new Canada Industrial Relations Board.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. We're going to come back to you. We're going to Mr. Johnston now. We'll have another round.
Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Minister.
Air Canada is currently running ads for replacement workers in anticipation of a work stoppage or an interruption in work by the ticket agents. Under this new legislation, would that practice be considered to be undermining the union, or would replacement workers be allowed to act as ticket agents if that were...? I realize this is an event that hasn't taken place, but I think it's one that could be clarified here.
.1600
Mr. Gagliano: That's why I didn't define in the code what unfair labour practice is. I believe the board... What I did in the legislation, the commitment I make as Minister of Labour, is to have the best protection for labour relations issues on the board, so they can have.... Here we're asking for a third party to make a judgment, and that judgment will be case by case.
At this stage.... I heard a different story, where Air Canada is preparing management personnel to fill those positions. That's different from hiring outside people.
That's why it should be judged case by case and the facts should all be before the committee. We're asking an independent third party to judge. I think modern collective negotiation has to go that way.
Mr. Johnston: You did indicate that jurisprudence would have a bearing on the judgment of the panel. Just for clarification, does that mean in the provinces where there is replacement worker ban legislation there may be different verdicts, as it were, from the panel or from the board, from in those provinces which don't have anti-replacement-worker legislation? I'm wondering if provincial legislation would have an effect on jurisprudence, depending on whether it took place in province A or province B, one of them having provincial anti-replacement-worker legislation and another not having it.
Mr. Gagliano: I believe the board will judge the case and use the jurisprudence according to the federal jurisdiction and the federal legislation. But I'll let my officials, who definitely have more experience than I do in these matters, say what would be the case.
Mr. Michael McDermott (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Legislative Review, Department of Human Resources Development (Labour)): Certainly Mr. Minister, as you've pointed out, the jurisdiction over labour relations is quite autonomous in each jurisdiction or province, and the provincial and federal jurisdictions are quite different from each other, quite autonomous of each other, in this respect. The CLRB today, or under this bill the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, would look at the jurisprudence it has developed first and foremost. It would indeed be judging the circumstances from the point of view of the code. Remember that although not every industry under the code is national, many of them are. There has to be a consistency in board legislation across the country.
Mr. Johnston: I have another question, about the make-up of the board. What procedures will be used to determine who will represent management and who will represent labour on the industrial relations board?
Mr. Gagliano: We'll be asking the major organizations representing labour and management to give us a list. The minister will appoint the members of the board from those respective lists, and in equal numbers.
Mr. Johnston: One other thing I find rather confusing in that area is the equal representatives of employers and employees. That's up to, I believe, the maximum of six permanent members. But it also allows for an unspecified quantity of part-time members, I think something to the effect of ``as many as are considered necessary''. Surely there has to be some kind of a ceiling on that, something that lays out the guidelines a little more concretely than however many is necessary. It does leave it quite open to the imagination.
.1605
Mr. Gagliano: First of all, it's the first time we introduced that possibility. This is what we want to avoid in case the board has a load of cases. We want the board to work. Those are actions before the board that need very speedy action and speedy answers. That's why we didn't specify the numbers. We might not need any. We might need a few. We might need them sometimes in specific regions. Those part-time members will be paid on a per diem basis. They will be available in case the regular members are overloaded with cases and there is a need.
That's the only reason we created this. We wanted a lean board, but we wanted a very functional board. Therefore, the best way to go was to have the minimum number of members, chairs and vice-chairs. According to the load of the work they wouldn't necessarily be the same people. Then we would appoint temporary members who would be paid on a per diem basis so there would be no fixed cost or burden to the taxpayer.
Mr. Johnston: Just for clarification, are you saying, Mr. Minister, there'll be an A team, so to speak, and a B team in case there's overload for -
Mr. Gagliano: No, the temporary, part-time members will be appointed on the same system as the permanent members. They won't be working all the time. They will be there in case we need them. Most of the time we will probably appoint them in regions and have it so they can also represent the regions.
We heard, during our consultations, that with the actual system there isn't necessarily regional representation. In certain cases - small cases and simple cases - that can be heard, we introduced the possibility that one member can hear a case instead of having three all the time. We're trying to have a flexible and efficient board without creating greater costs for the taxpayers.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to join the committee and welcome the minister.
I have one particular question with regard to your comments particular to grain handling and the ports. In your comments today you said:
- I am very happy to be introducing changes which will protect the grain industry, an industry that
is essential to the economic health of western Canada.
I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to explain what has taken place here, within the context of the amendments, to protect the grain industry as well as ensure a healthy labour relations situation on the coast.
Mr. Gagliano: First of all, let me say that the grain handlers in the grain elevators will continue to have the right to strike. In the past, if the grain handlers weren't on strike but the longshoremen, for example, were on strike, the grain couldn't be moved.
During our consultations, the longshoremen said if they are on strike they want to stay on strike, but they want to move the grain because they recognize that grain is an important commodity. That's why we're doing the legislation.
.1610
In the past, most of the time it was not necessarily a strike but a lockout. The longshoremen wanted to move the grain but were locked out and couldn't move it. With this provision that won't happen. Unless the grain handlers in the port are on strike, all the rest of the grain will move. So we believe this measure will improve the situation.
As I said in my speech in the House, in 1999 we will review the situation. We believe at this time this will be enough to regulate the grain flow. If it doesn't work differently we'll look at the situation in 1999 and maybe have to come up with tougher measures. I personally believe, and the government agrees with me, that those measures will allow the grain to flow in the port regularly, without taking away the workers' right to strike.
Mr. Taylor: It's certainly been one of the most contentious matters regarding the ports. In reaching this conclusion, have you reached agreements as well with the west coast longshoremen, the industry and those involved?
Mr. Gagliano: I believe the longshoremen - the workers - support this and they were encouraging. I believe the employers group would like this exemption to be extended to all the other commodities. We believe grain is special and this shouldn't necessarily be applied to the rest of the community. Then we would be taking the right to strike away from everybody. But I'm sure you will hear them before this committee.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. McCormick, followed by Mr. Nault.
Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Thank you,Mr. Minister, for appearing here and giving us your overview on this. I'm glad to have your knowledgeable officials here too, who have a lot of experience. They have helped us before.
You certainly are to be commended, Mr. Minister, on being able to even say, and say accurately, that the decision adopted by the government has been generally accepted and endorsed as a workable compromise by both sides - labour and management. To get this far is an excellent record.
I realize we're going to hear from many witnesses, and this is where we can make small changes and listen for changes in the future. When I hear about a strike, it makes me think of home in my eastern Ontario riding between Kingston and Belleville, where we have a high school strike on. At least I think it's still on - no one answered the phone at home today - or else the strike is going to happen at any hour.
It makes me think about the people, the Canadians, who come up and say the same thing about the high school strike that they said about the grain strike, ``We don't care'', whether they should or not. ``We don't care. It's not up to us to say who is right and who is wrong. We just want arbitration so things can happen in this country.''
You mentioned essential services. I wonder who will make the decision - I'm sure it's the board - about what services are essential. I'm wondering if you'd like to talk about the fact that the board may make this decision. But in your position as minister, when do you come along with the board to make a further decision, or whatever? Perhaps you can fill me in on that, Mr. Minister, please.
Mr. Gagliano: First of all, I believe and I think the government believes that collective bargaining is the most important part of our industrial relations, and we want to keep it that way.
.1615
First we said we'll have to protect health and safety. But we asked the parties. And the whole thrust of the Canada Labour Code and the whole thrust of this amendment is to ask the parties to sit down and negotiate. The best contract you can get is not one that you get through a strike. The best collective agreement you can reach is one you get through good faith negotiations.
First we establish the principle. It's in the code for the first time. We say that we would like this to be negotiated so everybody can agree and therefore we really protect the people's health and the security. But in case there is no agreement, we ask an impartial third party, the new Canadian Labour Relations Board, to then determine what is essential in terms of health, safety and security. That's why, in this amendment.... The first part of all the amendments is about the importance of this. We really put a lot of trust in this new board. It will be representative of all the stakeholders in the labour relations process.
Naturally, as a minister I would like the legislation to work, with an impartial, neutral third party if there is no agreement. I've been Minister of Labour for almost ten months. I have met most of the union and management groups and I think there is a lot of good faith. The best I think I can do as a Minister of Labour is to make sure that I also have enough faith in them and that I ask them to go to the negotiation table and negotiate. I think so far it has been working and I hope it will continue to work.
Mr. McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm sure the bill will help endorse and increase the good faith and the health of all Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, I'll pass this back to you for now. I have another question for later, if need be.
The Chairman: I'll pass it back to Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister, for coming here today.
If I can, I want to set the tone of these discussions that we're going to have about this bill by looking at the overall framework you've had to go through. For those who of course do not spend a lot time in the labour relations field, I think it's important for you, Minister, to lay out at this meeting the extent of the negotiations, the discussions and the consensus that was arrived at, and to tell us how long that's been going on.
I put that in context because I think you're aware that the copies of the letters I'm starting to get from certain groups across the country are addressed to you and are carbon-copied to the members of this committee. We're starting to get lobbied already by those who are suggesting there's a rationale for a major delay in this bill. They're talking two, three or four months - don't be in a big hurry - and I notice that the opposition has picked up on that tune.
So first I think it's important for you to tell us what has taken place to get from where you started to where you are now. Secondly, I think it's important to get a sense of why there are certain groups across the country who are saying we should be delaying this bill or who, in other words, are saying that we're in a hurry or we're moving too fast or we're not being very careful. That's the first question I'd like you to deal with.
The second one deals with the scope of collective bargaining and the changing workplace. That's the non-standard-employment side of the changes to the code. That particular area, of course, is going to be one that I think employers in particular are going to be attacking in the committee. They're going to be using a number of excuses, and already one of them is the issue of privacy.
I would like, through your officials or yourself, to have a layman's explanation of how you think this is going to work on the ground. I think it's important for us to understand how you propose to do that before we have witnesses coming to the committee. If an individual works at home but would like to belong to a union, how would that individual be dealt with by those who are trying to sign him up? That issue, of course, is one I suspect we'll be dealing with head-on with employer groups.
Those are my first two questions, Mr. Chairman.
.1620
Mr. Gagliano: I think most of the answers will come from Mr. McDermott, because he started this process two years ago and he can give the details and also say which groups participated.
This process was not such that those amendments were drawn up in a boardroom of the labour program in the human resources department. This was started through the.... All the stakeholders were involved. We had the Sims task force report. We had a consensus group where all the parties representing the groups that really have business in the federal jurisdiction - air transportation, telecommunications, banking, and so on....
I have seen those letters. I'm surprised, because those same organizations were part of the consensus. They went step by step with the Sims task group report, with the ministerial consultation, with the officials even during the preparation of the legislation. They have always been consulted.
Also, the bill was not introduced in the House yesterday. The bill was introduced over three weeks ago now. The idea that they haven't had enough time to prepare a brief.... I'm as surprised as you are.
But on this item I'll let Mike give you the full details on how we arrived here today.
Mr. McDermott: The process did start in about November of 1994 with a review that was taken at the officials level - I was charged with it myself - to explore just the three issues covered here: the structure of the labour board, the nature of the conciliation process, and the replacement worker issue. Those three issues were looked at. To some degree consensus was found in consultations with parties on two of those items. On one of them we didn't quite reach consensus. You can guess for yourself which it was.
As a result, at that point it became clear that perhaps a more global review of the code was required to look at the whole picture. The Minister of Labour of the day established an expert task force of three people, from three regions of Canada, from Alberta, from Quebec, and from Ontario. The task force travelled across the country from coast to coast. It received considerable input in the way of briefs and submissions. It met with the parties active under the code, and also met with people who, although not subject to the code, are affected by those services which are subject to the code.
In addition, the task force established a consensus group of the principal users of the code. On the management side, it's important to know who they were. They were FETCO, which groups together the main transportation and communications companies active under the code, and which claims, I think correctly, to be the employers of about 80% of the jurisdiction; the Canadian Bankers Association; and the Western Grain Elevator Association. On the union side the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Labour, and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux were active participants in the consensus exercise.
Consensus was reached on some key issues, mainly the board and the conciliation process, which were gathered up by Sims and were largely reflected in the bill. Beyond the consensus, there was the Sims report.
Although parties had differing views, they did it in the course of the minister's consultations, which he held in the month of April, following release of that report. There was a general feeling that the package as such was an acceptable package. There were some things people didn't like, and some things they would have liked to have seen were not there, but generally it was a reasonable compromise package. That was where the story stood until early this month.
That really is the activity of the last two years. It has been a most rewarding activity, certainly for somebody like myself who has spent considerable time as an official in this field. I think the general feeling of the parties was that it was a worthwhile exercise.
Mr. Gagliano: Thank you, Mike.
The other question, about the outside workers - how will somebody who works at home have their privacy, their security, be achieved - that's a very complex question. That's why we ask the board permission. The union goes before the board so the cases will be looked at case by case.
.1625
How can it be done today with new technology? You don't have to do it as it was done in the past and as I did it myself in the late 1960s and early 1970s. You don't have to go from door to door to try to inform workers that there is a union and they can join the union. Today, because of electronics, you can definitely do it without invading anyone's privacy.
Especially because of the jurisdiction of the federal workplace, electronic mail and other new communication means, it is possible that, without breaking any privacy or individual security, the union still can send out the message. People can be aware and informed of the union activities and decide for themselves whether to join or not.
The concern we have - and it's why we moved in that direction - is more and more non-standard jobs are created. Therefore we have to recognize, and we do recognize in this, that it is new and we're walking on new ground. We will be looking closely at how the new board will address it.
We believe it's a step in the right direction. Since it's new, we'll have to wait to see how it's going to be implemented, but I have hope that it will help and that we'll break some ground in this new workplace that is evolving every day, in a very dramatic change.
The Chairman: Madam Lalonde.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde (Mercier): Minister, congratulations for all the preparation and consultation you've done. I can see that there are some interesting improvements in this bill.
However, I would like to ask you whether you agree with me when I say that there's a world of difference between getting an agreement from parties on principle and formulate a whole number of clauses that are to be interpreted in conjunction with one another.
I will give you an example. I heard you say how you wanted to proceed to get a representative board. What you said isn't what is written in the bill. We can say today that we trust the Minister and that we are sure he will consult. Mention is made of employee or employer organizations that he "considers appropriate". Of course, you'll consult everyone and this is important in those sectors. But, Minister, you will not always be there. We can't use this text in a code to interpret as praiseworthy an intent as yours.
I'm using this example to ask you if you agree that there's quite a length to go between an agreement on principle and the formulation of an act of Parliament.
Good faith negotiations, we all agree, always boils down to a matter of economic strength in the private sector and political strength in the public sector. It's always a matter of strength and it's a surprise to no one. Any adoring couple can have awful fights to know whether you're going to the hockey game or the movies.
.1630
On another plane, when we talk about parties with different interests, it might not be possible to decide to change through consensus the legislative support that will regulate the use of the economic strength of both parties.
I don't want an answer to my following question. You might be forced not to go strictly by the consensus if what you're really looking for are the objectives that are there. Reasoned negotiations may demand a flexibility that is not found in some of the clauses I have seen.
For example, the fact that the right to strike must be used at the latest 60 days after the vote was taken may endanger a negotiation process that is actually going well. It could actually be going well because a strike is looming. Past the date, it may be that negotiations won't go that well anymore. So although things are proceeding at a good pace, the union might launch a the strike for fear of perhaps finding itself in a situation where things are no longer proceeding at pace and they'll have to start the whole game all over again. I'm talking about the union side. There are also provisions that may come into play on the employer side.
Minister, I've been speaking way too long, but basically I'm asking you if you expect us to examine in depth those principles on which you have obtained agreement. Thank you.
Mr. Gagliano: As to your first question on appointments, in paragraph 10(2) the Bill says:
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the members of the Board other than the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons are to be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister after consultation by the Minister with the organizations representative of employees or employers that the Minister considers appropriate, to hold office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Governor in Council at any time for cause.
Ms Lalonde: He's going to appoint whoever is recommended. That's not written anywhere.
Mr. Gagliano: The bill is very clear about consultations and that is not the case in the present Act. The Minister is committed to consulting the two organizations. That implies they will be submitting names and the Minister will be using the union list.
But we must remember that it remains the minister's responsibility since he is the one making recommendations to the Governor in Council. The minister must hold consultation but in the final analysis he must make the decision since he is personally responsible for it. That is why we talk about consultation. It's the first time this kind of commitment has been made in this area. I can assure you that so far both the management and the union sides are very satisfied in that respect.
As for the balance of power in bargaining and what I expect from this committee, I certainly have no authority to tell a parliamentary committee what it should do and how it should prepare for the examination of this bill. It's a very important piece of legislation. After 20 years, we have been successful in making a step in the right direction, as has been acknowledged by the most critical.
If the committee were to decide to attack the substance of the bill and call its principles into question rather than improving the bill, this would take several months and there is a risk that the bill would never be adopted. As a matter of fact, that the result that a number of people would like to see. They want to come here and take all the time necessary because they know quite well that the government is in its fourth year and that an election might be called and the bill could die on the order paper.
.1635
I think the committee does have a responsibility, just as I do as minister. If you think the principle of the amendments is a step in the right direction, then I would encourage you to be reasonable in your way about doing this work.
Take whatever time you need to study the bill and send it back to the House. If it is passed in the House, it will be sent to the Senate. I've already stated publicly that my aim was to have this bill become legislation in the Spring.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The minister indicated that Statistics Canada will stop publishing statistical information on labour unions. I was wondering if this information will still be available, and if so, how will the public gain access to it? What kind of vehicle will they have to replace what there is now?
Mr. Gagliano: If you'll allow me, Mr. Chairman, I would invite Mr. Smith from Statistics Canada to join us and answer that technical question. I don't pretend to know how Statistics Canada compiles statistics, so I'll let the expert answer.
The Chairman: Could you please identify yourself for the record?
Mr. Philip M. Smith (Director, Industrial Organization and Finance Division, Statistics Canada): My name is Philip Smith and I'm the director of the industrial organization and finance division of Statistics Canada. It's my division that's responsible for administering the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act within Statistics Canada.
I understand the question was on how we provide alternative sources of data to replace the data that are now collected under part II of CALURA.
Mr. Johnston: And how the public could gain access to that information.
Mr. Smith: Two types of information are collected through part II of CALURA. One pertains to membership characteristics of labour unions in Canada and the other pertains to the financial information associated with those labour unions: their assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses.
With regard to the latter, there will be no obvious replacement source. That's going to be a loss of information. Our consultations indicate there's very little use of that data right now and very little demand for it, but it will be a loss of information.
The first part, the membership, is where the greatest demand for CALURA data has been in the past. There we believe our new sources of information - which are, as I think the minister mentioned, the Labour Force Survey and the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics - will provide equivalent or indeed superior information to what is now being collected from part II of CALURA. It will be available to the public through the vehicles already available for disseminating the Labour Force Survey and the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics.
As you know, the Labour Force Survey is released once a month. There's a paper publication. The data go on our electronic database, CANSIM, and there's a press release in The Daily. An awful lot of information is collected there, and not every iota of it is published, but the parts that aren't published are readily available by the public speaking to officials in the responsible divisions.
Mr. Johnston: So the information on the financial side, then, is not going to be available even if it's requested? Is that right?
Mr. Smith: That's correct.
The Chairman: Do you have any further questions, Mr. Johnston?
Mr. Johnston: Yes, I have another specific question.
Perhaps the minister could clarify for me the situation with longshoremen handling or loading grain. Did I hear him say that even if the longshoremen were on strike, they would be required to loan grain that was at the port?
.1640
Mr. Gagliano: Yes.
Mr. Johnston: Then what if there were some other union associated with getting the grain to port, for instance, that was on strike at the port? Would the longshoremen have the right to cross the picket lines to load or unload the grain that was there?
Mr. Gagliano: All grain that is at the port has to be moved.
Mr. Johnston: I also noticed that there's no provision for getting the grain to the port. So there is still the possibility of a -
Mr. Gagliano: Railway strike.
Mr. Johnston: Well, there is the possibility of a third party being severely penalized because of a strike. There's certainly going to be pressure on the minister and his government to legislate those people back to work.
So there's no consideration there for essential services. Basically, this has made longshoremen into being part of essential services, but this has not done that for any of the associated unions that would bring the grain from say the prairie terminals to the ports. Is that correct?
Mr. Gagliano: The amendment applies to the grain that is in the port, to port activity. In looking at the statistics of other labour disputes that affected grain, a great majority of the work stoppage - Mike, you can correct me - happened in the ports. That's why we address the ports.
I repeat that we will be reviewing this in 1999. If that's not the case, then we'll have to see what we can do.
Mr. Nault: I wanted to go back with the minister to part two of my interest in the scope of collective bargaining for non-standard employment.
I understand that we were going to have to deal with new jurisprudence. In effect, the board will look at it and review it case by case. But for the sake of the discussion we will have in the committee, are you aware that they've attempted this already in other jurisdictions? Is there some sort of analysis that has been done in other jurisdictions? I don't think there are any in any of the provinces, but what about other jurisdictions in the western world, or whatever? Or are we at the point here of truly being the first to give this an attempt? This is not necessarily a bad thing; it shows some leadership on behalf of the Canadian government.
It also means that we're basically at such a very early stage in the beginning of this new process that it's going to be hard to have a solid debate with the witnesses because it would be all hypothetical. If we had some sort of analysis that was done from other jurisdictions, if they had something similar to this, it would be helpful to the committee. I was curious as to whether that exists.
Mr. McDermott: Like most things, there's no such thing as a new idea. Johane Tremblay just told me that in 1973 there was something in the B.C. code, but it wasn't used very much in those days. It's no longer in there, as far as I'm aware.
This is somewhat ground-breaking in the sense of putting it into a statute. I think the thought was that possibly the board already had some scope to make this kind of move that is now codified. Nevertheless, the Sims task force looked at this issue in particular and came up with this very recommendation that you see translated into the bill here.
The issue I've heard the most discussion on is about how they will protect privacy. Does this mean knocking on people's doors and trying to enter their homes? I would think that is a very unusual interpretation of the provision. It envisages, I would believe, mailing information. Providing information by electronic means is specifically mentioned in the bill. Indeed, for people who work off-site because they work at the end of some kind of computer terminal, that would be perhaps the most obvious way of communicating such information: via the network.
So it is ground-breaking. There is not a lot of information on this.
.1645
The analysis, however, is on the increased incidence of people who do work off-site, whether they work at home or otherwise. Increasingly, even in the federal jurisdiction, there are people who very seldom need to go to the employer's premises to get their daily work instructions or to pick up their assignments for the day. They do it by means of telephone, pager and all those kinds of things. That's what it's aimed to address. That is where the data are, but we don't have data about how this kind of provision has been used in the past.
Mr. Nault: A further area that I think is going to be discussed is the whole issue of the board. Quite frankly, I am one of those who believes that the reform of the board itself is long overdue. I want to say to the minister that I commend it.
One of the things that strikes me as kind of interesting is that we've reduced the amount of time the board can sit, from as high as ten for the chairman, down to five. I'd be curious to know the rationale for that versus another format that's used in situations of appointments in which it's at the pleasure of the government in a sort of Order in Council or at the pleasure of the minister. He or she can be removed whenever you find that it's difficult, as opposed to having set time lines for the individuals.
Where I'm coming from, Mr. Minister, is the three-year one for part-timers. It seems to me that in this particular field, the expertise that's necessary to be an effective member of the board takes a number of years, and three years seems like such a short time. Can you tell me what the rationale was in the discussions with the consensus group as to how they arrived at an acceptable timeframe? When I was first was made aware of the ten years for the chairman, it seemed like such a long time, but I suppose there was a rationale for that as well.
Mr. Gagliano: First of all, let me say that the three years is there. The three years or the five years can be renewed. I think a consensus group or myself agreeing with their recommendation is the direction that this government has been taking in all the Order in Council appointments.
Right now, the existing board has members who will be there for quite a few years yet. I think that allows the Governor in Council to renew the appointment if the case is for three years or five years and if the member has been doing a good job. The parties need to be consulted, such as the unions and management, if he's a member, to agree on his continuation. I don't see why any Governor in Council would not renew the appointment.
If something doesn't work properly, then three or five years I think also allows the flexibility to renew that board. I think renewal in every organization sometimes is good and sometimes is no good. I want to stress that this gives the possibility of renewing the mandate.
But if an individual for various reasons - I don't want to impute a motive to anybody here - feels that change is necessary at a certain time, then the Governor in Council has that possibility instead of waiting ten years or five years, or two years or three years.
Mr. Nault: This is my last question, Mr. Chairman. I always save the hard one for last.
There are two issues in here. Well, maybe there are three. The first one is the scope of collective bargaining. The other one obviously is replacement workers and how that whole analysis was arrived at. I suspect that employers are going to come and still complain to us that they're not in favour of that particular area and the amendments that relate to that. The other issue, of course is going to be the one of essential service.
So knowing that those areas are going to be the focal points of discussion with practically all our witnesses, I'd certainly like to know how you convince the unions to allow the essential service component and the amendments to the code dealing with essential services. Because some on the employers' side will come here and argue that this is fine, but now what they'll do is they will ask next time, why don't you make it essential service for the coal industry, which is a major component of B.C. industry? Why don't you have essential service for the lumber industry? It will go on and on down the line.
.1650
One of the questions I'm going to ask the unions when they come is why did you agree to this, if this is the consensus, and what was your rationale for it, or is it a trade-off for the other one, which is on the replacement workers; I would be interested in knowing what your opinion is. Those are the kinds of questions I suspect we'll be asking the witnesses on both sides of this issue.
Mr. Gagliano: Let me say this. In general the consensus and the different.... Because they all came before me during the ministerial consultations and both sides told me exactly the same thing. If you take the package item by item, naturally the union is against the replacement worker measure in the bill, because they want to ban replacement workers. The management side is against what is there because they don't want any limitation. They want to hire replacement workers whenever they wish. With essential service it's the same thing.
But at the end what they said was individually, we don't like this, and the other doesn't like that, but we can live with the package overall, because they said publicly - because my consultations were not behind closed doors, my consultations were public, before everybody, as we're doing here - union and management, in the vote on the whole package, we can live with it. Therefore as minister I looked.... In some cases I may have gone a little further than I would have wished to go, in other cases I didn't go far enough, but I think in general I respected the consensus that was created there. I respected the Sims report.
They might come here, and maybe the committee might want to straighten out the language of the bill here and there. I'll have to wait to see what they are going to say and you will be able to judge. But they cannot say that in general the package.... The Sims report and the consensus group...this bill reflects that consensus and the Sims report except on the replacement workers, where Sims had the minority report and the bill follows the majority report. On all the others I think in general we have respected those recommendations.
Again, if they're going to come here on individual issues, we'll say, well.... You and I know the employers' association of the port of Vancouver will come and say, well, why don't you give the same treatment to potash as you are giving to grain; why don't you give it to coal; why don't you give it to lumber? As a minister, I felt I had two possibilities in my hands. First, I could take the Westport inquiry commission report and put it in the legislation. I took a more sensible way, allowing grain, which is a very important commodity not only for Canada but for the rest of the world.
We might think the rest of the world has enough reserves of grain. The reserves of grain are not as big as we think. I wanted to make sure that commodity continues to flow to the rest of the world, not only for commercial reasons for Canada but because a lot of communities are starving and that grain helps when it arrives there.
We could have gone all the way through the list; but again, then we would have given up the principle we want to keep of the right to strike and free collective bargaining. Again, as I said at the beginning, it's not a revolutionary project, it's not a perfect project, but it's the best compromise and the best solution we could find, taking into account the situation and also the actual and the future condition of the global economy and the high tech we have to face in a competitive world.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne (Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, I would like to say how much we appreciate your attending the committee.
.1655
I want to follow up on the scope of the question that was offered by my colleague Mr. Nault. I think personally that this bill is an excellent balance in priorities and also in terms of the protection and security of individuals - workers and also employers.
One aspect, and Mr. Nault touched on it, is that provisions have been built into these amendments that reflect an economic reality and a national priority in this country, and that's specifically in terms of the grain shipments. It reflects the fact that this is of vital national interest, and it also reflects the importance to the economy.
With the assistance of your counsel, I'd like to get a kind of a scope, which I think would be particularly helpful for this committee as we receive representations or petitions for consideration of other aspects that I'm sure in the opinion of many of the witnesses we'll be hearing from also reflect national interests and national importances.
Is there latitude within the bill for consideration of other national interests? In particular, I'm looking at - just to be a little bit parochial about it - interprovincial ferry services. Right now, interprovincial ferry services, particularly the ones that are offered by Marine Atlantic, are covered within the scope of the Canada Labour Code. These are basically the provision of the extension of the Trans-Canada Highway to the citizens, particularly of Newfoundland, but as well of Quebec - the lower north shore of Quebec.
It has been a frequent topic of discussion and debate that labour interruptions on this particular service would prevent citizens of the country from having access to free mobility within the rest of the country.
The situation in Newfoundland is particularly relevant, given the fact that there are no land links. There are no other viable transportation mechanisms for the average citizen to be able to have free access and free mobility within the country. That's equally true for the people of the lower north shore of Quebec and the Labrador Straits.
There are no provisions in the bill to protect the continued existence of or continued access to those transportation links. My personal opinion - and it probably has not been brought up through any of the task force reports - is that this matter is of national interest as well.
While I consent to the fact that I think we'll be needled on a number of different occasions as to why different issues are of national interest, could you perhaps comment on whether or not that particular type of issue is something that your department, your ministry, would be prepared to consider within the scope of this bill, and perhaps also comment as to your own opinion or your own feelings about that particular issue?
Mr. Gagliano: As I said before, once you open it up, there are a lot of different commodities or services that are important. We did it on grain for the reason I explained just before, but if we continue, we will end up practically completely undermining the right to strike.
I believe that if it's a remote area and there are no other links that people can get, it's a question of health and security - that's why we put in the provision of the essential service. I felt at this moment that it was not time nor proper to define what an essential service for reasons of health or security is. A neutral party like the board will do it, case by case.
If there were a ferry strike - I see my colleague from Bonaventure and the Magdalen Islands - and there were no other means to get to the island, then it becomes a matter of health and security, and I'm sure that the board would give it the proper consideration.
.1700
We have to let the collective bargaining system function; otherwise we will undermine it.
Mr. Byrne: Just to follow up on that - and I appreciate your response - there is, however, latitude to be able to make the case or to make the position a little more clear that perhaps the information that's currently available within the department and from the senior executives' point of view as to why a particular situation should be followed up on, probably either through referral to the board.... Would the board be the proper mechanism in terms of making that particular case?
Mr. Gagliano: Yes. The board has that authority. We made it clear that the board has that authority to hear a case, and to hear a case on essential services for a reason of health and security. For example, the parties, management and union, could determine that instead of having one ferry every hour as in the regular schedule of transportation, they could reduce the number of trips. They could negotiate that. But if they don't, and one party believes it's an essential service and goes to the board, the board does have authority to make the judgment.
If the board determines that it's an essential service, and states the condition of how that single service should be respected, then it's law. It has the power to enforce it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister.
We're going to go through a very rapid round now. I'll give each member one minute to ask their question. We'll start with Mr. Gagnon, followed by Mr. Ménard and Mr. Johnston. Mr. Taylor, do you have a question?
Mr. Taylor: Yes.
The Chairman: Okay, so four questions, four minutes, and then we'll have the minister respond to all four all at once.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine): To continue in the same vein as my colleague from Newfoundland, reference was made to interprovincial transport. When an interruption in service takes place in the Magdelene Islands between Cap-aux-Meules and Prince Edward Island during the lobster season, the time required for decisions would be far in excess of the fishing period for certain species, a period which lasts only 16 weeks. I see that the decisions would be made known only after 168 days, that is five and a half months.
Is there any provision for a more rapid way of dealing with the transportation of certain goods, such as perishables?
Mr. Gagliano: Clearly, the setting up of the new Industrial Relations Board does give us the tools necessary to identify such situations more quickly than at present, without them being specifically mentioned. I'm sure that in such a case, the new board will recognize the urgency of the situation and will be able to hear the case immediately.
Secondly, the provision proposes that a 72 hour notice must be given before a strike or lockout can take place. The purpose is to allow one of the parties, in cases where there has not been an agreement on essential services, to appear immediately before the board which will then be able to react immediately.
So we have set up the framework in which the parties or the Industrial Relations Board can react quickly in order to avoid such a situation, particularly with respect to the fishery, because of course there is a health and fishery problem if the fish starts going bad.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gagnon.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I have another question, Mr. Chairman. It will be a short one.
.1705
I think that you did receive very strongly worded representations indicating that the unions, and I have a clear recollection of the CSN testimony, were uneasy with respect to this power you have to order the holding of a ballot before a strike vote. The same held true concerning the 72 hour advance notice.
Is it your understanding that at the present time this provision is accepted by your union partners? This would appear what you said in your answer to a question from my colleague. I'd be interested in knowing how you would assess the support you have received for this particular provision. The 72 hours' notice strikes me as being rather poorly received and seen as a factor that will ultimately undermine the balance of power between the employer and the unions.
Mr. Gagliano: As I previously said to Mr. Nault, I interpret the consensus and the support we have received as applying to the bill as a whole. However, if the unions or management have reservations about certain particular elements...
Mr. Ménard: You are not quite answering my question. Please be more precise.
Mr. Gagliano: There are some elements that may cause some difficulty, there are others that do not. I do not know whether it's the CSN or the Longshoremen Association that is opposed to the72 hours' notice but I do know that not all unions necessarily go along with it.
Mr. Ménard: But have the longshoremen made representations that you intend to take into account?
Mr. Gagliano: Well, this bill is now being studied by your committee. I will read your report with interest and we shall see later on.
Mr. Ménard: Let me reword my question, it will be my last one.
Would you be willing to accept an amendment from the opposition or from the government to do away with the 72 hours' notice?
Mr. Gagliano: I can tell you that I'll be meeting the Longshoremen Association at 6 o'clock this evening in my office and I am sure that they will be making representations to me. I know that generally speaking they are satisfied and they support the bill but there may be certain items they would prefer to see removed. We'll discuss the matter.
Mr. Ménard: [Inaudible - Editor] ... yourself, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Gagliano: I'm always quite open-minded and willing to be reasonable.
[English]
The Chairman: As an impartial chair, I can tell you that the minister will always exercise responsibility.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston: On page 8 of the minister's presentation today he spoke about collective bargaining as it pertains to off-site workers or to people who work off their employer's premises. And you wind up, Mr. Minister, by saying ``Such access would only take place under conditions which ensure that the privacy and security...is protected.''
Will the employee then have the option or will it be at his discretion to release or not release this personal information? Will they have an opportunity to opt out and not have their personal information made available to the labour union?
Mr. Gagliano: In the amendments I'm saying that the union can go before the board and ask permission to have access to those employees. It is the board that has to determine if it gives that access and under what conditions.
What I make clear in the bill is that security and personal privacy have to be protected. Again, like Mike said, and like I said, we are walking new ground and we want to make sure that it's done properly. I believe that the new forms of technology could allow the union to inform the employee of union activities without breaking that personal security or that personal privacy.
For example, through electronic mail or through the Internet the union could post a notice about a meeting or an organization drive going on. It's not addressing that employee, but that employee can, through the Internet, see that notice and take advantage of it. There are other forms. Again, we said specifically - and that's why I put it in the legislation - that we want to look at this case by case. We want to look at where the employers are, what type of businesses they have, what type of industry it is. The board can judge all of that information and make wise decisions, always taking into account that it must protect personal privacy and personal security.
.1710
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor, one final question.
Mr. Taylor: In concluding, Mr. Minister, let me say I am one who also appreciates the consultative work you've done in preparing the amendments. I think you've done a very admirable job, and the package, by and large, is very supportable. You're to be commended on your work.
I also want to commend you on your comment to Mr. Byrne a few minutes ago. You said we have to let collective bargaining function. But the one element in the bill that prevents collective bargaining from functioning well is the provision about replacement workers. Sims commented on experience out there - that the practice of using replacement workers incites hatred and violence on the picket line. It almost always leads to an extension of a dispute rather than settling it quickly.
We have quite a bit of evidence in Canada and we have legislation in the province of Quebec that bans replacement workers. Did you analyse that experience and the provincial legislation in this regard prior to reaching the compromise you have made in regard to replacement workers, or have you simply tried to reach a compromise without trying to actually resolve the problem of replacement workers?
Mr. Gagliano: I think the package that is there is fair. You talk about violence on the picket line. For the first time we have introduced that the worker, if there is a strike or lockout, will return to his place of work once the dispute is over. I think that takes away a lot of the anger and frustration when a worker sees another worker passing by, taking over his job.
Naturally, nobody likes violence. At least I didn't get any evidence before me. Let me remind you it's not only my conclusion, but the majority conclusion also - the Sims report. We put in the legislation that the banning of replacement workers eliminates all the violence that exists in certain strikes. I believe, with the measures that were put there, violent strikes in the federal jurisdiction that lasted quite long won't happen.
For example, the national strike wouldn't have lasted long with this because there was enough material that they could have gone before the board and proved bad faith. The union made it very clear during the Sims consultation and during my own consultation that the only thing it saw was a total ban on replacement workers.
You're also referring to provincial legislation. Let me remind you and the committee that the federal jurisdiction this legislation will be serving and addressing is not necessarily the same. Here we're dealing with vital sectors of the economy. We're dealing with telecommunication and transportation. That's to be done in an orderly way, because even though we all say the federal jurisdiction is only 700,000 workers and most of the labour jurisdiction is in the provincial hat, let me remind you - as I sometimes remind myself and my officials - that the 700,000 workers we have merely represent the door to the rest of the world when you consider telecommunications, banking and transportation. Those are the key sectors that will keep us going and keep us competitive.
.1715
What I'm trying to do here is to allow us to be competitive and at the same time to protect workers' rights. As I said, it's not perfect, but I think it's a balanced approach. I hope you will hear all the witnesses, then come up with a report, and we will move forward and make sure this piece of legislation will become law and workers and business and unions will all be able to work together and improve our economy and create jobs. That's why we're all here.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. On behalf of the committee members here, I would like to express to you our sincerest congratulations on your consultation process. It was extensive and exhaustive. I'm sure we as the members of this committee will make good use of all the work and material you have produced thus far. At any point in the life of a piece of legislation where you're reviewing work that is twenty years old you know that's a challenge, also given the changes that have occurred in our marketplace.
I want to end on the note you basically stated in your final comments, about the fact that this bill is going to deal with some major areas, such as telecommunications, banking, and transportation. For members of Parliament who are deeply concerned about positioning Canada on the right road towards export trade and making our economy as competitive as possible, I think this bill in many ways speaks to the amelioration of our situation here in Canada.
So Minister, and of course the officials, I would like to express our sincere gratitude for your presentation today. Thank you.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Chairman, may I add that my officials are here at your disposal for the rest of the committee's work. If you need any detailed information, or if after you have heard all the witnesses you feel you want me back to ask some questions, let my staff know and I'll be glad to come back.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The meeting is now adjourned to the call of the chair.