EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 28, 1996

.1544

[English]

The Chairman: I'd like to call the meeting to order and welcome everyone. Today, as you know, we are studying 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.

.1545

We have the pleasure of having with us representatives from the Western Grain Elevator Association. They have travelled quite a way to get to Ottawa and we certainly appreciate that. We would like to welcome the executive director, Mr. Ed Guest; the chairperson of the human resources committee, Ms Bonnie DuPont; and the counsel, Mr. James P. Carwana.

This is the way we operate in this committee. Basically, you have 10 to 15 minutes to give us an overview of your brief and then we move on to a question and answer session from the Bloc Québécois, the Reform, and then we move on to the Liberal side.

We certainly welcome your comments. You may begin.

Mr. Ed H. Guest (Executive Director, Western Grain Elevator Association): Mr. Chairperson, hon. members, I'll take the lead and have the people who know the most about it answer the questions. That gets me off the hook.

I must first apologize for the fact our brief is in English only. Due to time constraints, we ended up having to make it that way. We believe the points we raise in this brief are paramount to the grain industry. I will therefore read the brief verbatim. I would ask and hope that government services would translate the brief and distribute it at a later date to the folks who would require it in French.

By the way, the Western Grain Elevator Association and the British Columbia Terminal Elevator Operators Association appreciate the opportunity of being here.

The Western Grain Elevator Association represents the nine major grain companies operating in western Canada. Our members serve farmers in the four provinces at over 1,000 points on the Canadian prairies. Our members also own in excess of 99% of all grain elevators in western Canada and all terminal elevators at Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay.

The British Columbia Terminal Elevator Operators Association, an adjunct to the WGEA, was formed in 1957. It is an employers organization that has been granted authority to bargain collectively on behalf of its members with the union that represents their employees. The members of the association include a cooperative, a consortium of cooperatives, publicly traded cooperatives, a consortium of grain companies and a specific private grain company.

Our associations commend the government for a number of process changes included in the draft legislation. In particular, we believe the following proposed changes will enhance the collective bargaining process for industries such as the grain industry.

The proposal for a single-stage conciliation process that is to take no more than 60 days, other than with the consent of parties, will streamline bargaining and make conciliation more effective.

The proposed amendment, giving the new Canada Industrial Relations Board express authority to include additional members of an employers' organization in a multi-employer designation, will streamline bargaining by reducing the number of bargaining relationships and will enhance stability in industries such as ours.

The proposals to require 72 hours' notice prior to a strike or lockout and the new notice, if such action is not taken as provided for in the notice, will assist in an orderly transition to a work stoppage for employees, employers and third parties.

The proposal for a secret ballot within the 60 days prior to a work stoppage will certainly help to ensure that proper consideration is given to such a significant decision before that step is taken.

Such policies will enhance the bargaining process for all concerned. They are positive steps for improving collective bargaining and for increasing the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian industry.

We wish to commend the government for taking steps to ensure that disputes involving industries other than the grain industry do not impact on the flow of grain. The importance of the grain industry to the country is well recognized. The reason the Canada Labour Code applies to the industry at all is because grain elevators have been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada under the Constitution Act.

Along this line in a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that ``The movement of grain from Western Terminals in Vancouver and Prince Rupert has already been of great economic importance to the country.'' Even more recently, Canada's Minister of Labour noted that a conciliation commissioner was appointed in a dispute involving grain handling on the west coast ``because of the importance of a healthy grain handling industry to the Canadian economy and to Canada's international reputation as a reliable grain operator.''

.1550

Problems certainly arise when disputes in other industries can affect the flow of grain. Such disputes have nothing to do with the worldwide competitive forces affecting the grain industry and cannot be solved by economic forces at play between parties within the grain industry. Instead, disputes that are external to the grain industry can lead to grain being used as a hostage. The Industrial Inquiry Commission into Industrial Relations at West Coast Ports found that the longshore industry had used its capacity to halt grain exports as a type of ``ace in the hole'' in the past.

The commission stated in that regard, and I quote:

Against the background just set out, the Commission examined the relationships and the state of industrial relations at West Coast Ports. In the long shoring industry in particular, many of the normal elements of a collective bargaining relationship as envisaged by the Code are wanting. This is especially evident in the critical area of dispute resolution where, as noted earlier, the parties constantly run into trouble.

In this regard, many point to continued government interference as the major contribution factor for the industry's ailments and they speak in terms of never having been allowed to address their own substantive problems through the pressures of realistic economic sanction. Closer to the truth, though, is that the industry itself has brought this whole ritual of government intervention on themselves. Moreover, it is deliberately used by the industry to cloak its inability to resolve its own problems as well as a tool to counter the intransigence that is deeply rooted in their bargaining strategies.

I won't read the quote any further, but needless to say the commission wasn't too pleased with what they saw on the west coast at the time. They found that grain exports were affected on numerous occasions due to the inability of the parties in the longshore industry to arrive at a collective agreement. For example, legislation was recently needed in 1995 in order to prevent the stoppage of grain due to a lockout of longshore foremen and, in 1994, to end a strike by longshore workers affecting grain exports.

It is particularly important that disputes between parties in other industries be kept to those parties and that those disputes not affect the grain industry. To allow the grain industry to become a hostage in disputes involving other industries causes a severe detriment to Canada's competitiveness and reliability as a supplier of grain in a global economy.

At present, the Canadian grain industry is in transition as it attempts to lower costs and increase productivity. Much of the government regulatory framework is undergoing a major overhaul and legislation that has subsidized real tariffs in the past has now been repealed. The result is that the cost to the farmer of transporting grain has effectively doubled, creating demands that everyone else in the export chain become more efficient and reduce their costs.

At the same time, Canadian farmers are facing increased competition from other countries that are also seeking to reduce costs and become more efficient. A factor of great importance for Canada in maintaining customers in this climate of increased international competitiveness is the ability to demonstrate that our country is a reliable supplier of grain.

Indeed, the major ongoing threat to the grain industry is the concern of customers with respect to the liability of Canada as a supplier. The Western Grain Marketing Panel recently spoke to a number of buyers. The president of the Chinese food agency and the head of the Japanese buying system have both stated that their major concern is delays attributable to labour at the port of Vancouver.

.1555

There have been many reports reviewing Canadian grain customers' concerns. Most of those reports point to the problems that are incurred at the west coast.

After hearing all the submissions from all the interested parties, the industrial inquiry commission decided that the goal of isolating grain handling from other disputes was a goal that ought to be accomplished. The only question that remained was the method to be used to achieve such a goal.

The commission stated that it was of the view that the grain handling industry was deserving of its own industrial relations regime from the sprout to the spout. While we remain in favour of such a proposal to simplify the unionized jurisdiction for grain handling, the change in the draft legislation is a positive move towards isolating the grain industry from other disputes.

It is important, however, that even after the enactment of the new legislation, the effectiveness of the changes towards meeting this goal be monitored in order to determine the success of the means chosen to achieve the objective. If problems result with the practical effectiveness of the method chosen to meet the goal in the new legislation, the associations respectfully submit that the government ought to consider simplifying the matter further by including the function of loading grain within the jurisdiction of the Grain Workers Union. In this way and only in this way can the government ensure that grain will not be taken hostage in a longshoring dispute.

It should also be noted that by taking grain out of the equation for disputes in other industries, the proposed legislation will help to promote collective bargaining in those other industries.

The industrial inquiry commission noted that, as mentioned earlier, other parties have in the past used grain as the ace in the hole to avoid real bargaining and engaging in what they know as surface bargaining.

By removing grain from the picture, the issues facing those other industries will need to become the subject of real collective bargaining, with the end result, it is submitted, that these circumstances will be beneficial to those industries as well as everyone affected by the Canadian grain industry.

So much for the good news.

We strongly oppose the proposal contained in the draft legislation to create potential liability for employers who use replacement workers. Collective bargaining should support the right of both parties to test their economic strength in the marketplace as the ultimate dispute resolution mechanism.

The proposed legislation injects the Canada Industrial Relations Board into the dispute and gives only one party the right to take proceedings on the issue, that party being the union. This in and of itself creates a tremendous imbalance in the legislation.

A one-sided concept preventing an employer from operating by whatever means during a labour dispute removes any notion of a balance in the economic test between parties.

Striking employees can generally operate very adequately for a period of days during a labour dispute before any real economic pressure is felt. This happens through a combination of ways: final paycheque, strike pay, savings, second income, the use of credit, etc.

Many employers exposed to competition, particularly competition in the international marketplace, can't sustain a 60-day work stoppage. It can be potentially devastating. Customers will shift their business elsewhere, often permanently.

The grain industry makes commitments to customers as we compete in these world markets. The need for certainty and reliability of supply, especially of food, is an important part of our customers' buying decisions. Interfering with the grain industry's right to continue operations will impact on the security of this supply of food to our customers. By creating such uncertainty of supply, the new legislation can further cause us problems in losing the markets.

.1600

The fact that the proposed legislation on replacement workers will create a great deal of uncertainty for those parties and the customers that deal with them was recognized even by the task force examining this issue. In its report, the task force acknowledged the profound uncertainty that arises from the type of proposal being put forward. It noted at that time, and I quote:

But how does one tell when a strike or lockout changes from a legitimate economic dispute to a dispute over the employee's right to be represented by a Union and where replacement workers are being used for that purpose? There is no clear test that can be applied.

Given such uncertainty, it is open for a union to always argue that any use of replacement workers is aimed at representational rights. Litigation will create difficulties in maintaining international customers. The uncertainty over the potential result of the litigation will divert customers to other sources of supply of these foodstuffs in order to avoid any chance of an adverse decision interrupting that supply from Canada. Thus, the new proposal on replacement workers not only interferes with the balance in collective bargaining but also creates precisely the uncertainty that is an anathema to customers in the world market.

It is respectfully submitted that any legislation should seek to provide certainty for the parties with respect to the legal parameters in which they are to operate. Where there is no clear test to be applied with respect to such legislative parameters, it is respectfully submitted that such legislation is inherently flawed and will create more problems than it was intended to solve.

Maintaining the right to continue operations in the grain industry also minimizes the potential need to force resolution through back-to-work legislation and third-party arbitrated settlement. The history of settlements imposed by third parties has created long-term issues of competitiveness in the Canadian grain handling system. We submit that legislation should be aimed at preventing intervention rather than increasing the potential avenues of intervention by creating increased opportunities for prolonged litigation.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, hon. members, the proposed legislation dealing with replacement workers will tip the balance in collective bargaining in favour of the unions and employees. It will create more litigation and more intervention in the disputes. Furthermore, there will be uncertainty for all affected by the legislation, including international customers for Canada's grain. Such uncertainty will invariably lead to damage to Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grain.

We believe that a number of the provisions in the new legislation, as stated, will improve collective bargaining by streamlining the bargaining process and reducing the number of bargaining relationships. The new legislation will also create certainty in some areas by requiring strike lockout notice and secret ballot votes before a work stoppage. The provisions requiring the maintenance of service to grain vessels is a positive step towards removing the effects of labour disputes in other sectors from Canada's grain industry.

Unfortunately, the draft legislation concerning replacement workers will have the opposite effect of many of the other provisions. The replacement worker provision will create an imbalance in collective bargaining by giving a right to unions that has not been given to management. The legislation will also lead to increased litigation and uncertainty. There will be uncertainty concerning how the draft legislation is to be interpreted and uncertainty over the potential result. Such matters are counter-productive and will harm Canada's international reputation as a reliable grain exporter.

That concludes our remarks. I would note that the member companies of the Western Grain Elevator Association are Alberta Wheat Pool; Cargill Limited; Manitoba Pool Elevators; Parrish & Heimbecker, Limited; N.M. Paterson & Sons Limited; Pioneer Grain Company, Limited; Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; United Grain Growers Limited; Weyburn Inland Terminal Limited; and two other facilities owned by collectives of those companies, being Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. and Pacific Elevators Limited.

Thank you for your indulgence.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for a very thoughtful and very important presentation.

We'll now move to the question and answer session, starting with Mr. Ménard from the Bloc.

.1605

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with you in welcoming our witnesses. I am a member from the Montreal area, and I would like to apologize for my ignorance and the fact that I am not as familiar with the grain industry as I should be. However, I would reassure you immediately by explaining that I would be very pleased to learn about it. Could you please give us a description of the main stages and jobs involved in the organizations which you represent?

I know that you represent the nine major grain companies which account for 99 per cent of elevators in Western Canada. I am a member from an urban constituency, a child of asphalt I might say, and in order to help us clearly understand the scope of the clause giving somewhat preferential treatment to the whole area of handling and mandatory notice, I will be grateful if you could describe for us the major stages which you as employers must follow and in this connection comment also on export markets. In your presentation, the theme of reliability of supply is, of course, important. I will have two other questions following your explanation of the overall situation.

[English]

Mr. Guest: I'm not quite sure exactly how to answer that question in the detail you're looking for. If you want me to start from farm gate, I can certainly go that route.

Our members own elevators in the country. A grain producer brings his load into our elevators. There are some 1,150 elevators. We put grain in bins at that stage. Some of our companies are unionized at that stage and some aren't. We then mix those truckloads into railcar lots that move to a terminal position. At a terminal position - our members, again, own those facilities - grain is commingled and sorted and cleaned for movement into boats.

There are two types of grains. There are board grains that the Canadian Wheat Board control and there are what we call non-board or off-board grains that are marketed by the private trade. Some 80% of all grain is considered Wheat Board grain: wheat and barley. Most of those sales contracts for the food grains, being wheat and barley, are sold somewhere from a year to five years down the road, with supply delivery happening on six-week to six-month delivery contracts.

Does that give you a short summary of the question? We have unions in the country and we have unions at terminals.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You may find my question strange, for which I apologize once again. You described six operations to us. It was very important for me to have an overview because, I must confess, I am not very familiar with the industry you represent.

I now understand that you move from production to the elevators; the produce in the elevators is then loaded into trucks, and subsequently moved to terminals where the two types of grains are sorted. The last stage is to ship them by boat. There are therefore six operations. Where you want maximum protection to ensure as few work stoppages as possible, is at the last stage. Am I mistaken is saying that? The issue concerns the work done at the loading stage.

[English]

Mr. Guest: That's correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: That's fine. You can't understand how much that has helped me. As you can see, I have drawn up a table here which I will keep, and now every time we look at the grain industry I will know down to the smallest detail what we're talking about.

There is one point in your presentation which surprises me. Whether you support the union position or management, the strike weapon is always one of last resort. You were pleased that the conciliation process had been streamlined and you supported that. You seem to think that this process will be a somewhat more efficient way of proceeding and that the use of replacement workers, in certain very specific situations, which will be allowed by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, would be unfair. You are afraid that only one party will be represented and believe the use of such a process could become widespread.

.1610

You do not see how someone might think that the right of representation of a union may be undermined. That does not seem to you to be a significant concern.

I would like you to elaborate on that. Are you concerned because you believe that there is no case law at the present time and think that the balance or representation of the Board would not allow you to be heard, or do you believe that at the present time there are no guidelines and you would like such guidelines to be developed through legislation or by a quasi-judicial tribunal?

[English]

Mr. James P. Carwana (Counsel, Western Grain Elevator Association): There are two aspects to the submission on behalf of the grain industry. The first aspect is that the grain industry, like a number of other industries, feels that this particular amendment tips the balance in favour of the unions from the way the law has always been prior to this.

The second aspect, as you identified, is the aspect of uncertainty. Any time there is a new provision that invites litigation, and this provision in our submission will invite litigation...even the Sims commission has indicated in its report that the matter is not clear. In our respectful submission, this will create uncertainty and concern for grain in the international marketplace on how that litigation will be resolved and what will happen on a case-by-case basis. That creates uncertainty. Any form of uncertainty to customers who are buying food products like grain and wheat is very much an important concern to them.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I think that is where the argument has to be looked at carefully. Clearly, your premise is sound. Obviously a strike always has a disruptive effect. Nobody around this table would argue the opposite. However, once you have to comply with a process of the kind being proposed by the government, and I am not saying it is necessarily the best one since, as you know, I am from a province which has clearly stated that the use of replacement workers should be considered as an example of unfair practices, you end up with a process which is far more final and complex than the one being proposed.

Once a quasi-judicial tribunal rules on whether it is legitimate to use replacement workers, do you not think that there will be a certain number of stages involved, with things becoming a little more "regulated", as my colleague, the member for Mercier, might put it. We recognize that a strike is an ultimate recourse. It is obvious that a refusal to provide services is an ultimate recourse in the area of labour relations. How can you argue that it has the peremptory and very disturbing character which you claim it does? How can you think that we should not be worried about this at all and place an absolute prohibition on the use of replacement workers?

[English]

Mr. Carwana: Our position on this amendment is that we should remain with the status quo as it is now. There is no legislation dealing with replacement workers at present in the Canada Labour Code. Our position is that everyone understands the ground rules now; those are the ground rules, and our position is that it should remain as it is.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: However, you said in your introduction that you recognize that some work stoppages did cause major problems. You recognize that the members of the Sims Commission were very worried about the industry and work stoppages in Western Canada. How can you say that in the past there were very regrettable situations and extremely serious conflicts, and yet still call for the status quo?

[English]

Ms Bonnie DuPont (Chairperson, Human Resources Committee, Western Grain Elevator Association): We should make a differentiation between two separate parts of the process, which Mr. Guest explained in some of his earlier remarks. Certainly we have had very serious concerns, very serious labour disruptions, in our west coast terminals in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, which have very much created a negative reputation in the last 20 years around Canada's reliability as a supplier of grains and oilseeds.

.1615

We have evidence from international customers, as Mr. Guest mentioned, from the Chinese food agency and from our Japanese customers, that the lack of reliability has in fact encouraged them to seek supply from other countries. I'd like to set that aside as one issue; and it's an issue I think the individuals looking at amendments to part I have very carefully studied and for which we believe they have proposed an appropriate solution.

Going to the replacement worker legislation, replacement worker legislation would really affect the grain industry not so much in the west coast grain terminals but on the prairies. It's just as vital to the farm economy, the western grain and oilseed economy, that grain move off the prairies.

The issue we see with the replacement worker legislation - and by the way, we have experienced labour disputes on the Canadian prairies in the past - is that it could potentially inhibit us from providing base services to our farmers in the event of a labour dispute. Inasmuch as it's frustrating for our customers to not be able to access grain through our ports, it would be equally frustrating for our farmers not to market their grain. Of course, the difficulty, as Mr. Carwana points out, is it does nothing to enhance the reputation we would like to grow with our customers around reliability of supply from Canadian producers.

I think our problem and our issue really focuses and is focused on the importance of the grain industry being seen in world markets as a completely reliable supply. We know we have the best-quality grains in the world, but we know there are other countries that are out there trying to get into those markets and compete with us. One of the critical factors for us is a reliable reputation and an image in the international market.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms DuPont. Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde (Mercier): When I think of the few conflicts in the grain industry in which we have been involved here, the image which comes to mind is that of the problems which the workers told us they had to face, namely lockouts for which you were responsible and Parliament had to pass back-to-work legislation.

I can appreciate that clause 87.7 in the bill seeks to prevent that from happening. Since you have not singled it out, I presume that you agree with clause 87.7, and I think that is a good thing.

I would like to ask you a question about the 60-days provision. It seems to me that the provision in question, which you seem to support, is not likely to provide the labour relations climate which you need to enable the grain industry to consistently meet demand. In fact, if the work force can exercise their right to strike only within the 60-day period, is there not a danger that they may halt a bargaining process which is going well? If a settlement is not reached at the end of 60 days, the work force may lose their right to strike, something which they do not want to lose. As a result, they might chose not to settle and seek a new mandate. As you know, they would then have to slow down negotiations because people are not going to look for a strike vote when things are going well. They could therefore call a strike simply so as not to lose the right to strike.

.1620

I was involved in labour relations, and when I saw these provisions I was worried. It seems to me that instead of introducing fluidity and flexibility in the bargaining process, they might well make relations between the parties more inflexible.

Although a process might be going well, if there is no settlement at the end of 60 days then two things could happen: either the workers could go on strike even if a settlement is possible, or they might stop negotiations in order to seek a new strike mandate, thus interrupting the process.

Perhaps you may not have given attention to this point. The bill has many provisions; we may agree with the principles involved without finding the actual wording of certain clauses to be acceptable. Before accepting these provisions, and entrenching them in law, I think that we should first look at this particular clause. I do not feel that the negotiating process it provides will lead to faster settlements.

I'd like to hear your views on this.

[English]

Ms DuPont: Thank you for that question.

It certainly is an area we have considered in our deliberations as we've looked at the bill. Our industry has been plagued with lengthy negotiations. In fact, we have just recently, through a conciliation commissioner's report, settled a situation that was open from January 1, 1993. So we have a history in our industry of long, protracted negotiations, particularly on the west coast.

We were gratified, actually, to see this introduced in the amendments, because we have felt that the process prior to amendments has been too open-ended; in other words, it could be dragged on and continue creating bad feelings on both sides without being forced to resolution. So we were happy to see a 60-day limit, with the possibility for extension on the agreement of both parties.

I think that would cover off the slant you put on your question, which is what if negotiations are going well and the 60-day time limit is reached? My presumption would be, and our industry's presumption would be, that if negotiations were going well and we're coming up to that 60-day time limit, the parties would agree to seek an extension from the minister and then go into a protracted or a somewhat more prolonged negotiating period to avoid a strike.

I would say to you that in our industry - and I think we would have the agreement of our employees in this statement - the last thing we want is a strike. What we do want is a settlement. We want to keep the grain flowing. So my belief is, from our industry's perspective - and we cannot speak for other industries - we would use this clause, first of all, to hasten our negotiations to try to reach a conclusion, and then, if we failed to do that in the 60 days, to apply jointly for an extension and use the extended period.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms DuPont.

Mr. Johnston.

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

My colleague may choose to ask a question. Would that be fine with the committee?

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Mr. Johnston: Great.

On the issue of replacement workers, you said that in your opinion this would be a one-sided affair, meaning of course that it would tend to empower the unions more than it would the employer. I'm wondering what you would see as a better solution, in your opinion, or does this mean you feel that the board would be more inclined to rule in favour of unions than they would the employer? Maybe you'd just like a moment or two to expand on those thoughts.

Ms DuPont: Mr. Johnston, I'll respond to your question.

.1625

I could say that when we became aware the federal government was looking at the potential ban on replacement workers - and this was one of the initial discussions we had - and there seemed to be some thought it might in fact go that way, we were most alarmed, because in the federal sector we felt we had used replacement workers very responsibly. Certainly they have been used in disputes in the federal sector, and in our industry, again not on the west coast and not in our terminals but certainly on the prairies. They had in no way been used to undermine the union or in any sense to cause the employees to turn their backs on their appropriately elected representatives. They had simply been used to ensure that a certain level of business had been able to be carried on. And so there was a lot of concern that this would in fact shift the balance completely away from the employer and place, in our minds, an unwarranted and undue amount of power in the hands of the union.

When in fact we participated in the discussions of the Sims task force and put this case forward, we were told that there was a modification possibly in the thinking of the government and it would be very much as is stated in the legislation.

Our position remains that it didn't seem to us there was any real reason to change the status quo. What had been in place had been working; and in fact, when we first started this discussion, seven out of ten of the provinces of Canada saw no need for replacement worker legislation in their provincial codes. By the time the discussions ended, in fact, eight out of ten provinces in Canada had decided that there was no need for this type of legislation.

So that's the background to our thinking. We still believe we've been responsible in the management of our affairs. We've not manipulated or utilized the situation to destroy the credibility of unions, and we would prefer to maintain the position we are currently in.

The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate being able to visit from the agriculture committee, because this of course is very important to the western agricultural sector, and I welcome the guests here, who are doing a great job of speaking on behalf of the Western Grain Elevator Association.

Mr. Guest: It's rather interesting. We've been in existence since the late 1800s, and we're that private. We've been doing so well without coming to these kinds of committees in the past.

Mr. Hermanson: For the advantage of a number of committee members, most of whom are not from western Canada and, except for Mr. Johnston and myself, I believe, are not connected with the agriculture sector, the size of the industry -

Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like to put on the record to my honourable colleague that -

Mr. Hermanson: Do you have roots out west?

Mr. McCormick: - I have roots in the west. I have roots in the agricultural part of Canada through and through. I've combined in January, December, November, October, September and August. I've shovelled the wheat, I've transported it, I've trucked it. So I'm just saying there are others around the table who do have roots in agriculture, with great interest.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: That was an excellent point of order.

Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: Most farmers don't actually do their harvesting at that time of the year, so I'm not sure that's a good story.

Mr. McCormick: I certainly have, and certainly farmers do in many provinces on occasion -

The Chairman: I'll have to rule this as a point of debate.

Mr. McCormick: Rule it any way you want, Mr. Chair. I'm just replying to a comment. Thank you.

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

I wanted the witnesses to have an opportunity to tell this committee how important the industry is and also to discuss a little bit what is really fair. We hear a lot about the auto industry. We hear a lot about the steel manufacturing industry. Lately, we're hearing a lot about Canadian Airlines International and its 16,000 employees, and it's almost a national crisis. And I do concede that it's a very important issue.

But being a parliamentarian who flies from Ottawa to Saskatchewan - I don't even fly over the entire agricultural section - I see how large our industry is and I know how many people it affects. I've heard a lot of bickering back and forth between those representing elevator companies and those representing labour about how everything has to be fair, but there is one group that never seems to be considered when we're discussing what's really fair, and that's the innocent third party whose very livelihood is at risk if there's a labour dispute or if there's a management-labour dispute.

I'm not here to put the blame on either management or labour. Either side can be equally at fault if there's a lockout or a walkout.

.1630

Would you comment on how large the industry is and how helpless the producers are. If a sale is made to Japan, that sale has to be met. There are time constraints. That product has to get from the farm gate to the buyer in Japan. There aren't very many alternative routes. Oftentimes these labour disruptions affect more than one port or our rail system. I'm not sure this legislation is even comprehensive enough to meet the needs of the real people who suffer the injustice and the imbalance - and that's the innocent third party.

Mr. Guest: Thank you. Mr. Hermanson, we're going to tag-team the answer to this one, and Bonnie's going to do the unjust.

What I'll say in the short strokes is that from the farm gate there are some 130,000 farm families across three provinces where the total population would equal maybe 2.5 million people. You can multiply that by probably five or six for the farm families if we consider a family to be - what does government figure a family is these days? - 3.5 people. You can probably multiply that times three to five for the numbers.

For anybody who knows the corner of Portage and Main in Winnipeg, it's owned by the banking industry, who are making great gobs of money, and the agriculture industry financed the rest of it. The newest building on the corner of Portage and Main is the Toronto Dominion Centre, and if you took the agriculture industry out of the city of Winnipeg you would remove that entire building.

The agriculture industry does some $6 billion to $8 billion worth of direct sales. The agriculture industry does some 40% to 45% of all bulk products that move through the port of Vancouver as a single industry.

The other thing I would say is that, in response to an earlier question, if you think of a funnel, the farmers are at the top of the funnel and terminal elevators at Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay are the narrow end of the spout, and that's why we have two separate concerns.

Ms DuPont.

Ms DuPont: I'll add a few items to that. Canada exports more than 30 million tonnes of grains and oilseeds annually and we have customers in more than 80 countries around the globe, so we're not insignificant in either the amount of grain that leaves this country, and has to leave it in an orderly fashion, or in the profile we have in world markets.

To take it back to the farm and to the farm gate, I think very frequently the farmer, the producer, feels as though there are so many variables that are completely out of his or her control, variables such as the world markets, the prices of grains, the legislative constraints with trade agreements and so on, the weather. Our friend here harvested in January, and certainly that's going to be happening in Alberta this year. There are just so many variables that cannot be controlled, and the labour issue becomes yet another variable that at times certainly has our 130,000 producers in Western Canada feeling like hostages to their employees.

Mr. Hermanson: The impact on Canada's balance of trade, and positive balance of trade, is largely because of exports of agricultural products, so all of Canada benefits from having a reliable transportation system that doesn't hold these 130,000 individuals hostage in the prairies.

You talked a bit about the inadequacies regarding replacement workers. I would like to quickly move to another topic, which is the issue of final-offer selection arbitration, which I don't believe your association is particularly supportive of, but neither do we find the unions are supportive of it. Experience shows that often that is the fairest way to settle these labour disputes, because you could still go through the collective bargaining process, which the unions are very much protective of. But if those negotiations fail, you have what I think is the fairest mechanism possible to resolve the dispute quickly without a lockout or a walkout, and protect that innocent third party, one of the largest industries in Canada.

.1635

Ms DuPont: Over the years we have looked at all kinds of solutions in our industry. That would take us through the whole gamut - essential services, final-offer selection, all the way across the board. I think the consensus in our industry is that there is still a need for the economic solution that comes from the ability of the parties to either strike or lock out following responsible and serious bargaining. So that has not been an alternative that we have favoured in our industry. We believe that at times those kinds of solutions take away from the seriousness of the bargaining process. We think there should still be an allowance within our industry for the parties to bargain and bargain hard, to try to get their differences aired and on the table and resolved, and then have that economic possibility open to them.

Mr. Hermanson: Isn't the greater cause for the lack of serious bargaining the belief that the government will intervene with emergency legislation? Shortly after I was elected there was a lockout on the west coast. Emergency legislation was quickly passed through the House - I was part of that process - but what they actually legislated was final-offer selection arbitration. So we already have that, but we still had all of the disruptions. We had the parties not negotiating in good faith because they expected the government to intervene.

Ms DuPont: You're absolutely right, and we believe that has often been the case.

We've had a total of 13 disputes on the west coast since 1982. A large number of those, of course, were resolved by the parties being ordered back to work and arbitration being ordered. However, under the amendment that's been proposed, and presumably under the new legislation, a large number of those disputes would not have affected the flow of grain. Ten of those 13 disputes were not disputes between our industry and our unions. They were disputes that were incidental to our employees, but they were still successful in stopping the flow of grain.

So we think the amendment as proposed would go a long way toward facilitating the movement of grain from the west coast.

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hermanson.

Moving to the Liberal side, we have Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the Western Grain Elevator Association.

I would like to get right into the issue of what my friends across the way call compulsory arbitration. What is your experience with imposed settlements as they relate to collective bargaining? What we're talking about here is that exact thing. You've mentioned that there were 13, but I think you should describe what takes place when a third party comes in and imposes a settlement in an industry. Frankly, as good as our arbitrators can be, they don't live and work there day to day and don't understand it intimately. How do you think that's changed the industry since 1982? I want to get a sense of what compulsory arbitration means exactly.

Ms DuPont: As you say, a number of disputes were settled after Parliament was recalled and an arbitrator appointed. A significant number of those disputes were not necessarily affecting our employees. However, if you look at the ones that affected the longshoremen, frequently the net result was significant increases in wages and significant costs, which were passed back into the system.

.1640

The difficult part for us following those resolutions has been that our relationship with the unions involved in the west coast terminals has followed the longshoremen. So there's been a form of parity between the longshoremen and the Grain Workers Union, and it's driven our costs up. Our costs get passed back to the farmers, unfortunately. So it has been an expensive proposition for us.

With respect to our own union and some difficulties that we first tried to resolve on our own and then ultimately through third-party interventions, in the most recent situation we were trying to achieve a continuous operation situation in our west coast terminals. Given that those terminals represent a huge investment in western Canada, our view was that we needed to operate them on a 7-day-a-week, 24-hour basis, with reasonable weekend premiums.

We were involved with an arbitrator in 1991. That situation resulted in a recommendation that was simply unimplementable. We were not able to implement it because of the prohibitive nature of the costs involved in that solution.

It has been a very rocky road for us in terms of trying to live with third-party and arbitrated settlements, both the ones that have affected us indirectly because of longshore settlements and the ones that have had a more direct impact on us.

Mr. Nault: What I'm trying to determine is whether the Western Grain Elevator Association prefers the system we have, which is that you collectively bargain with your own employees, or some other form, whether it's compulsory arbitration, final-offer arbitration or some sort of mechanism where you don't have as much interest in sitting down at the table with your employees and coming to a solution.

Ms DuPont: Our position would be that we want to bargain collectively with our employees and try to reach reasonable solutions before other third-party intervention.

Mr. Nault: Okay. I wanted to get that on the record, because I think there's a perception by those of us who may not be as close to the west as a couple of my friends across the way that all westerners don't like to collectively bargain. It's been the position of some that we should change the system in order to safeguard somebody's way of life, but we've been doing it a certain way for over 100 years now, and it is in the Canada Labour Code and it's worked fairly well. We are trying to make some modern changes to it, and I just wanted to get that on the record.

I'd like to talk about the next issue, which is the one that seems to give you the most difficulty, and that is the replacement worker. My understanding is that in your industry you have never used external replacement workers, that you've used replacement workers who were already on your payroll - managers and others. If you rarely use replacement workers, why would you be under the impression that this would be a detriment to your particular industry?

Ms DuPont: You are quite right that we have limited experience in using replacement workers. We have not used them at all on the west coast. The one experience that I'm aware of is a recent strike - I believe it was in 1994 - with one of the grain companies on the prairies. They did use management people and supervisory staff, or people who preferred not to be on strike and wanted to continue to run the operations. So you're right about that aspect of it. We do have limited experience.

However, we have noted situations that have occurred in other jurisdictions. Our research would indicate that there is some potential for difficulty with the business being operated, with the enterprise actually continuing to do business without people being allowed to come into the facility and run the business.

.1645

Our concern - let's talk about the prairies because that's where it would be the most burning issue - would be that if we were not allowed to use replacement workers, or if there was some kind of restriction on replacement workers, we would not be able to provide delivery services or accept deliveries from our farmer customers and farmer operators.

Mr. Nault: That's the point I'm getting at. Is it your impression that not using replacement workers means you can't teach your managers to maintain a service? In most of your elevators in the prairies, I'd be surprised if there were more than two or three people working there.

Ms DuPont: That's right, but keep in mind that our people who work in the elevator, even though they may be called managers, are members of the unit. They're unionized.

Mr. Nault: In the last strike that you mentioned, I understood that most of the service, while it may have been restricted, continued by using managers in those small prairie elevators. Is that true?

Ms DuPont: It was very restricted. The service was very restricted in the Saskatchewan strike.

Mr. Nault: Okay. Let me go to one last question. I think it relates more to our legal person on the panel today.

We've already heard extensive discussion in committee that this replacement worker provision will cause undue hardship to employers, that at the drop of a hat employees will go to the board to seek relief, using any argument that this is detrimental to the union.

I want to give you an item of interest to compare. In 1984 we made some amendments to a particular clause, and it's called the right to refuse. I can recall - I used to be on the other side of the fence before I became a politician - that employers argued this would be a total disruption of the industry. Everybody would be refusing to work for health and safety reasons, and you would be going to the board steadily and all sorts of grievances would be filed. That never occurred. Once the jurisprudence was put in place and the board had an opportunity to decipher what was legitimate and what was frivolous, that was done very quickly and we carried on with business. It was used for legitimate health and safety reasons and still is. It's a very good part of the code, I think.

Based on this issue that the replacement worker provision is very limited, do you not think it's similar?

Mr. Carwana: The replacement worker legislation is different from the legislation you mentioned in a number of key areas. In particular, it comes into effect when there's a strike or a lockout. In many circumstances that's a much different situation than the normal working relationship you're referring to, where an employee feels there's a health and safety concern and wishes to refuse to work. The emotion tied up in a strike or lockout can sometimes lead to these kinds of things taking a different angle than the situation you're referring to. Where that kind of economic pressure is being brought to bear - collective bargaining often talks about economic pressure on both sides - there may be a tendency, especially where the legislation is uncertain, as was recognized by the Simms commission, for the union to try to relieve that pressure by using that as a tool to get replacement workers stopped.

Mr. Nault: I'm having a difficult time with this. When there is a strike in progress and replacement workers are being used, and you go to the board and the union goes to the board because they feel it's a detriment to their rights as workers, are you of the opinion that something suddenly changes? The strike is still going on, you're in front of the board and you're hearing a particular grievance. Are you suggesting that changes the dynamics of what's happening on the ground?

I'm having difficulty following this. I'm trying to get a sense of why employers seem to think that if someone goes to the board, which they can do now for unfair negotiating, unfair labour practices.... A number of things can occur during a strike that the union can go to the board with. This is just one of those that will be added. I'm trying to get a sense of why you think this is such a difficult issue to deal with at the board during a lockout or a strike.

.1650

Mr. Carwana: One of the main focuses - and this was indicated in the Sims commission report - is that this can impact directly on the employer's ability to continue to operate. That is a fundamental feature in the economic equation that we see with respect to collective bargaining.

This has been commented on by a number of commentators, including Paul Weiler in his book Reconcilable Differences. The Woods task force early on mentioned this as the quid pro quo: the employer's right to continue to operate and the employee's right to look for work elsewhere during a strike.

When you fiddle with that balance and you impact on the employer's right to operate and you're not impacting on the employee's rights in any way, that does create an imbalance. The employer then faces the kinds of challenges that the unions and employees don't face in dealing with this economic equation.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick and then Madame Lalonde.

Mr. McCormick: Thank you.

I just have a short question that I wouldn't expect you could answer now.

You talked about your concerns. I concede that, sorry, we can't help you out in regard to the weather, one of the conditions that affects getting the crops to market.

I wonder if you have any figures available in the office that.... You talk about the costs of settlements with the longshore people and so on. I wonder what it costs today, or say in 1993 terms - the most recent costs you have - versus 10 years previous to get, say, a tonne of grain from Ceylon or Pennant, Saskatchewan, to the west and load it on a vessel. In today's figures, yes, wages have gone up, but with the way things move so well on the coast....

It's a serious question. I just wondered if you have figures on the cost today versus what it might have been previously.

Ms DuPont: We don't actually have a figure for you, Mr. McCormick, but we'd be happy to get that information and fax it back to the committee.

I can say with some level of assurance that it is significantly higher than it was 10 years ago. The companies have invested a great deal in new technology in the facilities at the west coast, so there have been some productivity gains, which have helped to control costs, but certainly on the wage rate side we've seen very significant cost increases.

Mr. McCormick: I was asking about overall costs.

Mr. DuPont: We'll get you that.

Mr. McCormick: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Mr. Guest: I'd just caution with the answer that it may not be as significant as you think, because of the millions of dollars that have been spent in infrastructure to try to keep the costs down.

Mr. McCormick: Granted.

Mr. Guest: And it depends on whose costs you're talking about - the costs to the buyer, the costs to the producer or the costs to the grain handler - because they vary tremendously. As you know, freight rates were just doubled for the farmer.

Mr. McCormick: I'm very much aware, yes.

Mr. Guest: Just so you know, the costs are not as definitive as they may look.

Mr. McCormick: There is the cost of the bushel of grain at the gate and the cost of the bushel of grain loaded on the ship.

Mr. Guest: I'll undertake to send you the numbers, but I'll clearly define what they mean so there's no confusion.

Mr. McCormick: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

The Chairman: Madame Lalonde, followed by Mr. Grose.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: My first comment concerns your observation that the 60-day period could be extended with the agreement of the parties concerned. I did not contradict you, even though it seems this was not the case. I have looked through the bill and, to the best of my knowledge, that is not the case. That does apply to the 72-hour notice, but not to the 60-day notice. I would ask you to look carefully at the issue of replacement workers since that provision may have an impact on flexibility. That is my first comment.

.1655

My second comment concerns replacement workers. Essentially, are you not afraid that there may be case law which would quickly establish that there cannot be replacement workers, thus enabling operations to continue, without this being interpreted as an attack on the union's ability to represent its members?

[English]

Mr. Carwana: I think earlier in the answer there was reference to the situation that has prevailed to date, and Ms DuPont went through the background as to how the proposal first started out in terms of some of the discussion as to where this might end up and some of the discussion that has evolved through this.

At this point the position - and it has been throughout - is that there's no need in this area to change the law. Everyone understands the law as it is now.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: In other words, you consider case law to be such that there is already a balance between the parties. Is that what you are saying?

[English]

Mr. Carwana: As I was indicating earlier, the position in collective bargaining has often been described as an economic struggle between employers and the union.

Mrs. Lalonde: C'est ça.

Mr. Carwana: A number of commentators in the past - the Woods task force, Professor Weiler - have commented that the balance we have at present is the correct balance, being that the employer can continue to maintain operations to the extent they can, and the employees can seek to find new work to the extent they can. That quid pro quo, that balance, has been what commentators have mentioned over the course of a number of years, and it's been discussed as being the appropriate or proper balance.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: But I understand that you could also say yes in answer to my question.

[English]

Mr. Carwana: When you're talking about the balance, the position of the industry then is in agreement with what's been said before - that it is the appropriate balance. The way the balance is now is the appropriate balance.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Grose, a final question.

Mr. Grose (Oshawa): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make it plain right off the bat. I have never harvested or combined a bushel of grain in any month of the year, and an elevator is something that gets me from the first to the sixth floor.

That having been said, we've been addressing the situation almost completely with traffic going west. As I understand it, there's a flow of grain east, is there not, through the Lakehead? What is your part in that, and do you have the same kind of labour problems with something coming this way backing up the system, or are we of such a calm, tranquil nature here that we never cause any problems? I'd like you to give a bit of an overview of grain coming this way.

Mr. Guest: In the ten years I've been with this association, we've had two bargaining sessions that took in excess of eighteen months. We've had three strikes in fifteen years. We have been arbitrated back to work a couple of times with awards that...the arbitrator was happy, because neither the union or management sides were happy, so it must have been a healthy balance in the middle.

We don't have the same problem with the neck of the funnel in terms of longshore at Thunder Bay as we do at the west coast. With the exception of that one area, everything else is identical. It's the same companies, the same terminals, the same scenario, except for the longshore problem.

Mr. Grose: Thank you. You've answered my question.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Guest, Ms DuPont, Mr. Carwana, thank you very much for a very thoughtful presentation. Judging from the number of questions, it seems you generated a lot of interest and a lot of thought. Thank you very much, and have a safe trip home.

.1700

Mr. Guest: We thank you. We will undertake to provide written answers to the questions that we said we would.

The Chairman: That's greatly appreciated.

Mr. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have a motion that I'd like to present to the committee.

The Chairman: Go ahead and read the motion.

Mr. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I move that, due to the critical situation at Canadian Airlines, this committee undertake an immediate review of section 108.1 of the Canada Labour Code to permit employees to vote on any restructuring offer put forward by the employer.

The Chairman: Are there any questions on it? Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, before we get into debate of the motion, we had a motion put on the floor at the last meeting. I think it would be appropriate to deal with that motion first. Once we're finished with that motion, we can go to Mr. Johnston's motion. I certainly would like to speak to it at some length, based on my past experience, but I'd like to deal with this other motion first.

The Chairman: Yes, I agree with your interpretation. We're dealing with the other motion related to the clause-by-clause, so this particular motion would be dealt with thereafter. Mr. Nault, do you have the motion?

Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll reread the motion that was put to the floor yesterday. It says:

That Clause by Clause of Bill C-66 be scheduled for December 10 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. and that, on December 10, the Chairman shall interrupt the debate if necessary, and put forthwith and successfully all questions necessary to dispose of the Bill at the committee stage.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, as you were saying yesterday, I think that we could agree to begin clause-by-clause consideration next Tuesday.

However, given the complexity of the bill and the very technical nature of some of the clauses, is the government ready to agree to giving two days for clause-by-clause consideration? I know that the parliamentary secretary said the 10th, but we would finish on the 12th.

An honourable member: The 10th, 11th and 12th, that makes three days.

Mr. Ménard: We could take one extra day.

[English]

The Chairman: That's fine, but then I'm going to ask the committee members that it's not going to be December 11; it will be December 9. We will start on Monday and end on the Tuesday.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No, not Monday! We are not here on Monday.

Ms Lalonde: I don't mind.

Mr. Ménard: We said Tuesday.

[English]

The Chairman: Tuesday is when we end. This is what we agreed to.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No, we agreed on Tuesday.

[English]

The Chairman: That's correct, but you want two days.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, Tuesday and Wednesday.

[English]

The Chairman: If you're going to end on Tuesday, the only way you're going to get two days is if you start on Monday. If you want two days the other way, that's not on, because we've already established we're going to finish the clause-by-clause on December 10. So two days would mean that you would have to start on December 9.

As for the reason we're not starting on December 9, Mr. Johnston, you can confirm this is because of your particular situation of having to come from out west, and, Mr. Ménard, you feel that Monday is quite difficult.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I understood yesterday that we would begin on Tuesday. Are you talking about next Monday or the following Monday? The following Monday? I see. If it is the following Monday, we can agree.

[English]

The Chairman: So we would start on Monday, December 9, and I would have to report by the end of the day on Tuesday, December 10.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It will not be completely finished.

[English]

The Chairman: Let Mr. McCormick...I'll get back to you.

.1705

Mr. McCormick: The last I heard yesterday when we did agree to put the vote off on this motion until today was that we were starting on Tuesday and we were going to extended hours and doing what we had to do, as this committee's done before, and we would do it on Tuesday. I thought we had consensus on that. I just wanted to confirm that.

The Chairman: Yes, but the only change here is that we're not starting on Tuesday, we are starting on Monday.

Mr. McCormick: That was my point, Mr. Chair. I understood we were starting on Tuesday and finishing on Tuesday.

The Chairman: We're just trying to accommodate all parties here.

Mr. McCormick: I'm sure we are, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine): We would be accommodated if the whole thing took place on Tuesday only.

Mr. McCormick: That's what I understood.

The Chairman: No, I agree. But I'm also cognizant of the fact that we're dealing with 93 clauses. It's pretty lengthy.

Mr. McCormick: It will be a long day for some of our people, no doubt.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, we'll agree with that. We'll find the members. I know some will have difficulty, but we will be here on Monday.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Therefore, we are prepared to begin on Monday, to give it two days, because you agree that it is technical and that after all we are talking about more than 90 clauses.

Ms Lalonde: We will be proposing amendments.

Mr. Ménard: As my colleague said, we will be proposing amendments which are all so relevant that the government will accept them.

Mr. Chairman, do you think that it might be possible to have a guarantee that before beginning clause-by-clause consideration... There are two questions here. Can we be sure that there will be experts with us here? Yesterday, when I discussed this with the clerk, at the time it seemed that the experts had not been contacted, which I found worrying. It might also be advisable to ensure that we have with us people both from outside and within the department. There is one question asked continuously by the witnesses; On whom will the onus lie regarding the whole issue of replacement workers and allegations that the representative responsibility of the unions has been undermined?

Before beginning clause-by-clause consideration, we must have all necessary information, and this means independent witnesses. But we should also look to the department to obtain clarifications.

If these conditions are met, Mr. Chairman, you can count on our conscientious co-operation.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to deal with this bill the way I deal with every other bill. I'm not going to change anything. What's going to happen is the following: we're going to hear all the experts and all the associations and all the parties that care about this particular bill; we're going to listen to as many as we can, given the time.

When we get to clause-by-clause, we will have what we always traditionally have; namely, we're going to have the officials with us to explain the bill clause by clause. Nothing is going to change. We're not going to exercise any innovation on the clause-by-clause. We're going to make sure we're going to get all the experts we need prior to that, but the officials will be here for the clause-by-clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Could the clerk quickly run through the names of the witnesses whom we expect next week? As of yesterday, there were not any experts.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde received a list this afternoon, so perhaps you can talk to one another and figure that out.

Mr. Nault, I want to keep this meeting quite brief.

Mr. Nault: I just want to mention that the officials will be here. The opposition has a good week to get what they perceive to be the professionals and/or expertise to come to the committee. They should make every effort to do so. But I certainly think our officials will be up to answer the questions that are asked of members, as relates to the definitions of certain clauses.

The Chairman: We're still dealing with the motion. We would have to have a friendly amendment, if possible.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: The clause-by-clause motion will therefore read as follows:

That Clause by Clause of Bill C-66 be scheduled for December 9 at 9 a.m. and that the chairman, on December 10, 1996, shall interrupt the debate, if necessary, and put forthwith and successfully all questions necessary to dispose of the bill at the committee stage.

Perhaps we would want to elaborate on the time on December 10; usually midnight is when the day ends. Is that the time you would like to have it for?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Yes, Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: To reassure you, we do not intend to abuse our use of time, on the contrary. This bill is very important, and there are some very specific clauses which will regulate corporate and individual lives.

.1710

[English]

The Chairman: That's why we have clause-by-clause - to improve the bill, if we can.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: But we need experts. The list which you sent to my office is certainly not complete and does not include any experts. I think that those are the people who have been contacted to date. Is it complete? But there are not any experts.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Lalonde, there are certain administrative functions that are the responsibility of the clerk, and there are also some responsibilities that members of Parliament have, all of us. When we arranged for how we were going to set up the list, we said we'd feed the names and numbers and addresses through the clerk. I assume that's being done in a professional and honourable way, so I don't deal with those issues.

Now, let's go take the vote for this.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, no, that is not acceptable. I've asked the question three times. I will now ask it for the last time and I hope to be given an answer.

In the list we provided, among the 25 witnesses, there are a number of experts, including Mr. Blouin. In fact, there are three. Perhaps they are not available, but that would be surprising.

What I want to know is not very complicated: have they been contacted and who is going to come; and if they have not been contacted, are steps being taken to do so?

[English]

The Chairman: You're right.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Can the clerk give us information on that?

[English]

The Chairman: It's not very complicated for me either.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I am glad you realize that.

[English]

The Chairman: It's not the first bill I've put through the committee. It's quite easy. You've given the clerk the list. The list, I'm sure, is being called up, and people are being asked to appear. That, to me, seems to be a logical sequence of events.

I'll let the clerk -

Mr. Nault: I'll answer it.

The Chairman: Or Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, first of all, we have no agreement with the Bloc on the list. We have an agreement with the Reform. We had discussions and we agreed to their list. We never did agree with Mr. Ménard. We asked to have a meeting. We never did have that meeting. We were supposed to meet in the afternoon of that day. He was not available, so we never did agree to what his list was.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Nault: As it relates to Mr. Blouin, who was part of the task force, if you recall, we have a significant problem with it in that what we're doing is inviting one member of a task force. That's a big concern. I would suggest Mr. Blouin won't accept simply because he puts himself in a very difficult position in regard to the other members of the task force. The reason why we don't accept Mr. Blouin coming to the committee is it puts him in an uncompromising position, when he is one member of a task force. The fact that he comes from the province of Quebec doesn't make any difference. What we're doing basically is asking him to interpret what the rest of the members of the task force have decided. That's why we don't agree with this.

But, Mr. Chairman, I'm still willing to look at where the Bloc wants to go with their witness list. They gave us their top 25, I think it was. Some of those of course are not interested in coming, because they're members of these organizations that have shown up - FETCO and others - and they are not interested in coming. If they want to put other witnesses forward, then we can have that discussion. But I think it should be had after we deal with the motion. We still have all next week. And if there are certain people they would like to have, I'd like to have that discussion. But it's not been had between Mr. Ménard and me as of yet.

The Chairman: Okay. Is there a question?

Mr. Nault: Call the question and let's have it. I want to get on to this other motion.

The Chairman: We are going to debate on the question now.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I know that Mr. Nault is a man of good faith and I have very much appreciated working with him. But, as he will agree, in any self-respecting Parliament the Official Opposition is not required to justify why it has placed the name of a particular witness on a list. It is not up to Mr. Nault to presume whether Mr. Blouin is available or not, and in any event we have to remember that he was in disagreement. In order to do our work in an informed manner, we are asking that the experts whose names appear on the list provided by the Bloc Quebecois be contacted.

If we were to be told that they are not available, that would be a different matter, but with all due respect for Mr. Nault, I do not intend to explain why we have decided to invite a particular witness. The role of the Official Opposition is to enable people to express themselves. Can we please ask the clerk to tell us who, among the experts, has or has not agreed to come?

[English]

Mr. Nault: That's not how it works at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Pardon?

[English]

Mr. Nault: That's not how it works at all. What we decided to do, if you recall - you may have a short memory, but mine is very long - is that we would agree on a list, and you can ask Mr. Johnston.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We had...

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Nault: In order to get away from the 60-20-20, we would agree to a list. Mr. Ménard has just suggested that he has the right, as an opposition member, to choose whoever he wants to come to the committee. Mr. Chairman, if that's the case, we'll pass motions here on every single witness, to order the clerk to decide which witnesses based on the majority.

.1715

What we asked you is, in good faith, to tell us which ones you would like, and if we could agree with them, we would set that list up and then we'd pass motions on the ones we didn't agree with. We can do it that way, quite frankly. For Mr. Ménard to suggest to some of us who've been around here more than two days that the opposition's going to dictate which witnesses come...excuse me, but that's not going to happen here.

An hon. member: Question.

Mr. Ménard: [Inaudible - Editor]

The Chairman: Just a second here. Mr. Ménard. Can we have some order, please.

Some hon. members: [Inaudible - Editor]

The Chairman: Excuse me, can we have some order.

Mr. Nault: Let's vote on the motion first.

An hon. member: Right.

The Chairman: We need to clear the air about a few things here. The number one thing was that the meeting between you, Mr. Nault and Mr. Johnston should have taken place. That was the responsibility of the three members involved. That was the case, and that's where the priority interveners were going to be stated. Of course you put the clerk in a very difficult position, because if you haven't forwarded a list he has a problem.

We're still going back now to the clause-by-clause and we're going to take a vote.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Johnston: [Inaudible - Editor] I asked a question and I want -

The Chairman: I'm sorry about that, Mr. Johnston. I can reopen the meeting.

Mr. Johnston: Good.

Section 108.1, Mr. Chairman, of the Labour Code of Canada says that the minister may intervene

Where notice to bargain collectively has been given under this Part, and the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that the employees in the affected bargaining unit be given the opportunity to accept or reject the offer of the employer last received by the trade union in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties...

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Johnston: I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that this committee should undertake an immediate review of section 108.1 to allow for the members of the CAW and CUPE to be able to express their acceptance or rejection of the offer put to them by their employer. I think this is certainly a grave enough situation.

There are thousands of jobs on the line here, Mr. Chairman. This is something that I think is well within the realm of this committee and something that we would be certainly capable of dealing with, and should. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much understand the interests of the opposition as it relates to this issue, considering I live on the border of western Canada and have lots to do with Canadian. First of all, Mr. Chairman, there has to be an understanding of what the members are asking for.

Section 108.1, which gives the minister the right to order a vote, is done when notice to bargain collectively has been given under this particular section. First of all, there is no negotiation per the collective bargaining unit in the true sense in an open period, Mr. Chairman, but in fact this is a restructuring of the company that doesn't apply under this particular section.

They may have to look at a different section of the act, which may not exist, Mr. Chairman, because there is no area where the minister can intervene when there is in fact no collective bargaining process going on. It may be to the benefit of the opposition to want to play this out in western Canada, but in fact the decision has to be made within the constitution of the unions involved. They are elected democratically, just as we are, and it's their intent, their abilities, and their reputations that are at stake.

.1720

I'm sure in the end the leadership of the unions will do the right thing. I do not think this is the appropriate place, nor does the act allow for this kind of thing. If they want to restructure this whole particular section, it would remove the intent of what it was there for in the first place, which was for the minister to intervene during an open period when the collective bargaining process had begun.

I would think we should rule this out of order, Mr. Chairman. If necessary, we're willing to vote against this motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, to complete our discussion on the previous question about the witness list, you know that we have done very serious work from the beginning and we are very willing to...

[English]

Mr. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, this is finished business.

The Chairman: It is.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to that point because you cut me off.

It is simply a matter of reaching a good understanding for our future work, since you cut me off and adjourned the meeting before agreement could be reached.

I would just like to say to the chairman that we are prepared to work conscientiously. We have done so since the beginning, but we want to be sure that the experts will be contacted. That is essentially what I wanted to say.

[English]

The Chairman: With all due respect, hard work is something I take for granted. Of course, that's why we're here. The clause-by-clause issue is really separate from the particular issue you're raising. We'll deal with that, but now we're going to go back to the -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You didn't chair proceedings properly because you adjourned in an abrupt and offhanded manner. That's not how things should be done.

[English]

Mr. McCormick: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I hear my honourable colleague, and that's fine, but we have to debate it later. The point is well made. I think we should move on to discuss the motion. Thanks.

The Chairman: Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to address the motion at hand for a minute and also address some of the comments by Mr. Nault in the process.

I don't think there's any doubt, we certainly haven't suggested that what we've been asking for is outside of section 108.1 as now drafted. That of course is not the issue. The issue is asking this committee to review section 108.1 and to ask whether it's appropriate in this kind of circumstance whether it be changed. I would point out that obviously we have a pressing situation here, but there is a more general question as well that the committee should be addressing.

We can say that there is no collective bargaining in the process. Under the notice given in the Canada Labour Code, technically speaking that is correct. But here we are insisting on a legal technicality that defies the facts of the situation as everyone knows it. There is collective bargaining going on between the parties, and indeed very intensive bargaining. In fact, four major labour unions have reached some agreement with their employer.

I think we have a situation here that fits into the spirit of section 108.1, but the labour minister isn't able to address it given the current drafting of the section. Obviously there's a public interest, obviously there's a pressing interest; and I would point out that the government itself has indicated clearly in the House that it wants to see the workers vote on the offer by CEO Benson of Canadian Airlines. The government has indicated this absolutely clearly. The government has no legislative means at the moment by which it could bring that about. Certainly the appropriate thing would be for it to at least study legislative options for it to allow that to happen, if indeed it wanted to pursue this option.

I would submit in concluding, Mr. Chairman, that all this motion does is ask the government to undertake a study very consistent with its own expressed wishes.

I would suggest as well that if it were to reject at least studying the motion, it's really rejecting or going back on what it said in the House, and I think it would be sending a very unfortunate message to the leadership of the CAW and CUPE that it would be perfectly happy to see them not have a vote and to ultimately see the deal fail for this reason.

.1725

So I would suggest that it's perfectly appropriate to vote to study this. It doesn't commit the committee or the Liberal government to any particular position on what the resolution of that study should be.

The Chairman: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms Lowland: Mr. Chairman, obviously what happens to this major industry has more of an impact on our colleagues from Western Canada, but we are all involved in the process of reviewing the Canada Labour Code, which was preceded by a lengthy study by a commission on issues related to the reform of labour relations.

This is not the first time that a situation like the Canadian Airlines situation has occurred. However, those who helped in the drafting of this bill, both on the management and union sides - and in labour relations you always have a bias - were not in the least sensitive to the requests made by our colleagues from Western Canada.

From my knowledge of labour relations and the spirit which should prevail in this context, to force a vote in such a situation would certainly not have the effect of creating orderly relations. I think that a solution will be found and that union leaders will do the right things. The issue cannot be resolved through the adoption of this kind of provision. Once again, my comments are based largely on a labour relations viewpoint.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Nault. Be mindful of the fact that we have a vote coming up.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, my biggest concern about this is the impression the opposition, in particular the third party, is leaving with Canadians, and that is that the members who are elected by unions to represent the membership don't care whether this company survives or goes under. That is the farthest thing from the truth. Whether a member of Parliament from Calgary or from Kenora - Rainy River suggests to members of the union that they will have a vote.... In the end, Mr. Chairman, there are many variables that play into this, and I don't think we should leave the impression that the unions will not have a vote, because they may do so once they feel there's a necessity to do it.

This is a discussion about people taking a 10% cut in their pay. It's not something that should be taken lightly. It's not the first time this particular company has gone to its employees and said please help us out because we are in trouble.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether this will be enough to keep Canadian going three or four years down the road again. How far do they expect the membership to go? Many people believe - and even the corporation and management itself have said this - that getting a cut in pay from the employees is not going to save the company, that something more dramatic needs to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the interest of my friends across the way. Frankly, I think this would be a waste of the committee's time. By the time we got to studying this particular clause and doing what has been done in the other sections of the bill, which we're debating and talking with witnesses about, which took a good two years to come to this consensus on.... I think Canadian would either be the most successful company or would no longer exist by the time we got to finishing the discussions and having people come forward. I think it's not appropriate, nor is it necessary, and the unions and employer will do the right thing on their own without members of Parliament spending an undue amount of time studying a particular clause.

The Chairman: Mr. Johnston, you want to intervene. Please be mindful of the fact that -

Mr. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I agree 100% with my colleague that this is something that affects the membership profoundly, and that is why we are saying the membership should be allowed to vote on it freely and without repercussion from the union.

.1730

Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the question and I'd like a recorded vote.

Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 2

Mr. Nault: Before we wrap up, for Mr. Ménard's sake I would like to look at his interest in certain witnesses, and if we could come to an understanding, fine.

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Mr. Nault: I haven't seen the ones he's interested in. A list was given, but we haven't had the discussion, and I would still like to have that discussion. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page